They are not compelling speech. They are compelling Apple to facilitate dissemination of a message that is very clearly labelled as not being Apple's opinion.
It is pretty clear that this is not a problem under US law either: All kinds of legal requirements exist to add specific notices to various products, for example.
> but it should not be required to lead customers to believe that they agree with it.
There is nothing in the proposed wording that implies Apples agreement. In fact, the very purpose is to announce the verdict of a court case where Apple very obviously argued for the opposite result.
The proposed wording starts "On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled". There's no implication that Apple agrees anywhere.
It is pretty clear that this is not a problem under US law either: All kinds of legal requirements exist to add specific notices to various products, for example.
> but it should not be required to lead customers to believe that they agree with it.
There is nothing in the proposed wording that implies Apples agreement. In fact, the very purpose is to announce the verdict of a court case where Apple very obviously argued for the opposite result.
The proposed wording starts "On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled". There's no implication that Apple agrees anywhere.