Chiles v. Salazar · ¶119

The second “speech incident to conduct” category the United States advances—whether the restriction on speech is unrelated to its content—is also fatally fawed. It ignores what NIFLA plainly recognizes: that States can regulate the medical treatments healthcare professionals provide to patients without running afoul of the First Amendment, even if the regulation applies to and restricts speech based on its content. 585 U. S., at 769–770. In other words, what mattered to NIFLA's analysis was not that the regulation was content-based, but instead that the speech was being restricted incidentally.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.