ech, of an individual. According to the Court's majority opinion in Wooley v. Maynard, a 1977 case, "at the heart of the First Amendment is the notion that an individual should be free to believe as he will, and that in a free society one's beliefs should be shaped by his mind and his conscience rather than coerced by the state." Another component of Mitchell's First Amendment argument against the penalty enhancement law was that the statute was overbroad, and might have a "chilling effect" on free speech. Mitchell contended that with such a penalty enhancement law, many citizens would be hesitant to express their unpopular opinions; for fear that those opinions would be used against them in the future. In Abrams v. United States, Justice Holmes, in his dissent, argued "laws which limit or chill thought and expression detract from the goal of insuring the availability of the broadest possible range of ideas and expression in the marketplace of ideas". Chief Justice Rehnquist, however, rejects the notion that the Wisconsin
             ...