[rtkwe]

The current interpretation says there are certain reasonable restrictions on the 1st for the public safety. Compelled speech isn't accepted as constitutional.

Remember the constitution only really, effectively, says whatever the current Supreme Court says it means. And really I don't think anyone want's the 100% literal 'shall make no law' interpretation of free speech; that would throw out any kind of labeling laws for starters, companies would have no government compulsion to accurately label drugs or food products for example.

[SeanMacConMara]

is ordering silence and secretly seizing control of the publication technology (ie website) then maintaining a false warrant canary a way around compelled speech ? if so then regular live press-conference/video appearances would be the only practical implementation method. if they say nothing and exit then the canary is dead.

[rtkwe]

It could be, I'm not a lawyer. That seizure would be something you could fight in court too on two fronts: seizure of property and if the government takes over your means of communication and pretends to be you what separates that from directly compelling speech.