Content-based restrictions on speech are subject to the most exacting scrutiny because they pose the inherent risk that the government seeks not to advance a legitimate regulatory goal, but to suppress unpopular ideas or information or manipulate the public debate through coercion rather than persuasion. Where a statute regulates speech based on its content, it is subject to strict judicial scrutiny, requiring the government to show that the challenged regulation is narrowly tailored to serve or promote a compelling government interest. To survive strict scrutiny analysis, a statute that imposes a content-based restriction on speech must serve a compelling governmental interest; must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest; and, must be the least restrictive means of advancing that interest. In other words, to survive the strict scrutiny standard as applied to state regulation of speech, the State has the burden of proving that its regulation is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Where a law challenged under the First Amendment burdens core political speech, the courts will apply “exacting scrutiny,” and uphold the restriction only if it is narrowly tailored to serve an overriding state interest.

When content-based speech regulation is in question, exacting scrutiny is required. (Per opinion of Justice Kennedy, with three Justices concurring and two Justices concurring in the judgment.) U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1. U.S. v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537 (2012).

Lawmakers may no more silence unwanted speech by burdening its utterance than by censoring its content. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1. Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653 (2011).

The fear that people would make bad decisions if given truthful information cannot justify content-based burdens on speech. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1. Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653 (2011).

Laws regulating speech based on its content generally must withstand intense scrutiny when facing First Amendment challenge. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1. Log Cabin Republicans v. U.S., 716 F. Supp. 2d 884 (C.D. Cal. 2010).

Content-based exclusion will not satisfy strict scrutiny under First Amendment when less speech-restrictive means exist to achieve compelling state interest. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1. Occupy Fresno v. County of Fresno, 835 F. Supp. 2d 849 (E.D. Cal. 2011).

Because a content-based speech restriction is presumptively invalid the government bears the burden to rebut that presumption. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1. U.S. v. Strandlof, 746 F. Supp. 2d 1183 (D. Colo. 2010).

In the case of a facially content-based statute, to survive a First Amendment free speech challenge, the statute must be necessary to serve the asserted compelling interest; the existence of adequate content-neutral alternatives undercuts significantly any defense of such a statute. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1. Wollschlaeger v. Farmer, 814 F. Supp. 2d 1367 (S.D. Fla. 2011).