Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): and that the court finds that as such it does not offend the First Amendment. D. The City’s Required Message Does Not Violate the First Amendment The Ordinance requires Plaintiffs to inform City residents on the cover of Plaintiffs’ yellow pages directories and on their websites about the City’s opt-out procedure. SMC 6.255.110. Plaintiffs assert that the City’s required message is compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment. (Pis. Reply at 11-12.) The Supreme Court has upheld compelled commercial speech where the state required inclusion of “purely factual and uncontroversial information” in advertising. Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626, 651, 105 S.Ct. 2265, 85 L.Ed.2d 652 (1985); see also United States v. Schiff 379 F.3d 621, 630-31 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Video Software Dealers Ass’n v. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the media has a qualified privilege to report the information they receive from government officials (B) holding that evidence of a defendants prior criminal convictions could be introduced for the purpose of sentence enhancement if the jury was instructed that the evidence could not be used for the purposes of determining guilt (C) holding employer thirdparty beneficiary could compel arbitration (D) holding that government could compel website operator to post factual information about potential criminal liability patrons could face if they used the website to evade taxes (E) holding that a summary plan description need only provide information about the general circumstances in which benefits could be lost
Output (English): holding that a summary plan description need only provide information about the general circumstances in which benefits could be lost