*Some footnotes are omitted. Those included are not renumbered.[Ed.]
3Pro appeared in court at the divorce trial in response to a subpoena. Accordingly, we have no reason to consider what result we would have reached if she had appeared voluntarily. Although Judge Roth, in dissent, characterizes our holding here as constitutionalizing "simple obedience to the law," dissent at 1292, we must point out that here, Pro's response to the subpoena clearly implicated the First Amendment - her potential testimony would have constituted speech itself, not expressive conduct, as the dissent describes her act of compliance with the subpoena. Thus we are not here "constitutionalizing compliance" with the law.