California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Martinez, 273 Cal.Rptr.3d 505, 59 Cal.App.5th 280 (Cal. App. 2020):
The parties agree that section 2076 regulates speech, but they disagree as to the appropriate level of judicial scrutiny and whether the section survives such scrutiny. A law that restricts speech may be constitutionally invalid on its face if it fails to pass the requisite judicial scrutiny. (See, e.g., Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n (2011) 564 U.S. 786, 799-800, 131 S.Ct. 2729, 180 L.Ed.2d 708 [state restrictions on violent video games failed to pass strict scrutiny]; R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992) 505 U.S. 377, 391-396, 112 S.Ct. 2538, 120 L.Ed.2d 305 [city's bias-motivated disorderly conduct ordinance, under which a juvenile had been charged for cross-burning, was "facially unconstitutional"
[273 Cal.Rptr.3d 520]
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.