human
Where the designed benefit of a content-based speech restriction is to shield the sensibilities of listeners, the general rule is that the right of expression prevails, even where no less restrictive alternative exists. We are expected to protect our own sensibilities simply by averting our eyes. Playboy, 529 U.S. at 813 (2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 209 (1975) (
gpt
). For example, in Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), the Supreme Court reversed defendant's conviction for wearing, in a municipal courthouse, a jacket bearing the inscription
human
Fuck the Draft. The Court noted that
gpt
Id. at 21. This justification for suppressing speech failed, however, because it
human
Id. The Court concluded that