Chiles v. Salazar · ¶126

The conclusion that a State can regulate the provision of medical care even if, in so doing, it incidentally restricts the speech of some providers, fully comports with the First Amendment's animating principles. These principles include the well-settled notion that context matters when evaluating First Amendment challenges to state regulation. See Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy, 425 U. S., at 762–768 (analyzing the First Amendment protections due speech in the commercial context); cf. Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of N. Y., 447 U. S. 557, 564, n. 6 (1980) (explaining how the context and characteristics of commercial speech justify less scrutiny).

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