Chiles v. Salazar · ¶164

All things considered, then, I reach a different conclusion in this case than the majority does because precedent, principles, and history point in the same direction: No heightened scrutiny is warranted here. The First Amendment cares about government efforts to suppress “speech as speech” (based on its expressive content), not laws that, like the MCTL, restrict speech “incidentally,” due to the government's traditional, garden-variety regulation of such speakers' professional conduct.

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