[BinaryIdiot]

> As I said, that distinction matters for Apple's spurious "compelled speech" argument.

It does not. Just because a government orders you to do something privately doesn't mean it isn't compelled speech. Regardless, see my reply to your other comment.

[lern_too_spel]

> Just because a government orders you to do something privately doesn't mean it isn't compelled speech.

As I said earlier, the standard for illegal compelled​speech was defined in Wooley v. Maynard, prior to which there was no such thing as illegal compelled speech. Do you actually have an argument about why forcing the writing of unreleased software is illegal compelled speech, or are you going to keep saying it as a truism?