Opinion ID: 1656256
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Political/Public Issue Speech.

Text: ¶ 20. The United States Supreme Court has held and frequently reaffirmed that speech on political views and public issues occupies the `highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values,' and is entitled to special protection. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 145, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 1689, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983) (quoting NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 913, 102 S.Ct. 3409, 3425, 73 L.Ed.2d 1215 (1982); Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 467, 100 S.Ct. 2286, 2293, 65 L.Ed.2d 263 (1980)). ¶ 21. Where the government seeks to restrain political/public issue speech, it must withstand strict scrutiny, which requires the government to demonstrate that the restraint is (1) narrowly tailored to serve (2) a compelling state interest. Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765, 774-75, 122 S.Ct. 2528, 153 L.Ed.2d 694 (2002) (emphasis added). A prior restraint is narrowly tailored where it does not `unnecessarily circumscrib[e] protected expression'. Id. (quoting Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45, 54, 102 S.Ct. 1523, 71 L.Ed.2d 732 (1982)). ¶ 22. Obviously, the state will have more difficulty demonstrating a compelling state interest (as required for political/public issue speech), than a substantial interest (as required for commercial speech). It is therefore important in the first instance to determine the category of speech the government seeks to restrain.