human
If a less restrictive alternative would serve the Government's purpose, the legislature must use that alternative. ); Sable, 492 U.S. at 126 (
gpt
The Government may . . . regulate the content of constitutionally protected speech in order to promote a compelling interest if it chooses the least restrictive means to further the articulated interest. ). As is the case with the narrow tailoring requirement, the government bears the burden of proof in showing the ineffectiveness of less restrictive alternatives.
human
When a plausible, less restrictive alternative is offered to a content- based speech restriction, it is the Government's obligation to prove that the alternative will be ineffective to achieve its goals. Playboy, 529 U.S. at 816; see also Reno, 521 U.S. at 879 (
gpt
The breadth of this content-based restriction of speech imposes an especially heavy burden on the Government to explain why a less restrictive provision would not be as effective . . . . ); Fabulous Assocs., Inc. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 896 F.2d 780, 787 (3d Cir. 1990) (
human
We focus . . . on the more difficult question whether the Commonwealth has borne its heavy burden of demonstrating that the compelling state interest could not be served by restrictions that are less intrusive on protected forms of expression.