Opinion ID: 6560
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Direct Advancement of the Governmental Interest

Text: 26 This is the most difficult part of the Central Hudson test for the City. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the substantial burden this requirement places on the proponent of a restriction on commercial speech. 18 The burden is on the City to show that its restrictions on MD II's advertising will in fact alleviate ... to a material degree 19 the harms identified above. [T]he regulation may not be sustained if it provides only ineffective or remote support for the government's purpose. 20 27 The district court found that the city has failed to show that its regulation of Plaintiff's use of the term 'gentleman's club' in any way furthers its stated interest in preserving property values or reducing crime. [T]he city has made no finding, the district court continued, that advertising that employs the term 'gentleman's club' produces the deleterious effects which the city seeks to curb. The City has not on this appeal persuaded us that the district court's findings were incorrect. In formulating its ordinance, the city relied on no studies showing a link between advertising and property values or crime. 21 We have no doubt that the interests the city seeks to protect merit protection, but like the district court, we are unable to conclude on this record that those interests are served by banning the advertising prohibited by the ordinance. This factor weighs in favor of affirming the district court.