Court Opinion

ID: 8414947
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-02 21:24:48.051195+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:48:10.951995
License: Public Domain

NELSON, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring in judgment:
I concur in the judgment of this case because I believe that the ordinance, in its current form, likely violates the First Amendment by mandating a warning requirement so large that it will probably chill protected commercial speech. See Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626, 651, 105 S.Ct. 2265, 85 L.Ed.2d 652 (1985) (“We recognize that unjustified or unduly burdensome disclosure requirements might offend the First Amendment by chilling protected commercial speech.”). While I do not understand the majority’s opinion to state that no properly worded warning would pass constitutional muster, I agree that the City has not carried its burden in demonstrating that the twenty percent requirement at issue here would not deter certain entities from advertising in their medium of choice. Because this case can be disposed of on this question alone, I would reverse and remand without making the tenuous conclusion that the warning’s language is controversial and misleading.
APPENDIX A
*900[[Image here]]
*901[[Image here]]