The businesses argued that the law is a content-based restriction on commercial speech, not an economic regulation. The latter threat is about the most egregious violation of the First Amendment possible.
California claimed that the law simply restricts conduct—imposition of a surcharge on credit card users—and does not regulate speech. It basically amounts to what is called a prior restraint, which is an injunction intended to prevent specific speech from even entering the public debate.
Well, first of all, if there were any “confrontations” over the content of the decal, those who confront the truck’s owner would be ...
that a Chicago public indecency ordinance that prohibits women from baring their breasts in public is constitutional.
This week, the Justice Department filed a statement of interest supporting two conservative groups suing UC Berkeley, where a number of high-profile incidents involving the silencing of controversial speakers has taken place.