The following excerpt is from Geary v. Renne, 914 F.2d 1249 (9th Cir. 1990):
376 U.S. 254, 270, 84 S.Ct. 710, 720, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964). New York Times v. Sullivan considered three main factors in its analysis. First, it recognized, as demonstrated in the above quote, the first amendment interest in wide-open debate. Second, it considered the government interest in the challenged restriction, which in the present case is significant. Third, it considered the deterrent nature of the challenged regulation, which in the present case is non-existent. Following this pattern we conclude that the challenged statutes are constitutional.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.