How have courts interpreted the First Amendment in the context of an ordinance declaring door to door solicitation a misdemeanor?

Breard v. City of Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622, 71 S.Ct. 920, 95 L.Ed. 1233, upheld an ordinance declaring door to door solicitation of subscriptions to magazines etc. to be a misdemeanor. The liberties of the First Amendment were declared not to have been violated. At pages 625-626, of 341 U.S., at page 923 of 71 S.Ct., the court said: 'There is equal unanimity that opportunists, for private gain, cannot be permitted to arm themselves with an acceptable principle, such as that of a right to work, a privilege to engage in interstate commerce, or a free press, and proceed to use it as an iron standard to smooth their path by crushing the living rights of others to privacy and repose. This case calls for an adjustment of constitutional rights in the light of the particular living conditions of the time and place. Everyone cannot have his own way and each must yield something to the reasonable satisfaction of the needs of all.' At page 633, of 341 U.S. at page 927 of 71 S.C.: 'The problem is legislative where there are reasonable bases for legislative action. We hold that this ordinance is not invalid under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.' At page 645, of 341 U.S., at page 934 of 71 S.Ct.: 'We think those communities that have found these methods of sale obnoxious may control them by ordinance. It would be, it seems to us, a misuse of the great guarantees of free speech and free press to use those guarantees to force a community to admit the solicitors of publications to the home permises of its residents. We see no abridgment of the principles of the First Amendment in this ordinance.'