valid time, place, manner restrictions. New Jersey Citizen Action v. Edison Township, 797 F.2d 1250, 1256 (3d Cir.1986). This Circuit has held that “regulations of door-to-door canvassing must be precisely drawn to serve the interests they are designed to further.” Id. at 1255 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)(emphasis in original). In other words, the restriction must be tailored so as not to “burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government’s legitimate interest.” Ward, 491 U.S. at 799, 109 S.Ct. 2746. Courts have not been hesitant to find that purported governmental interests, although compelling, do not justify sweeping bans on speech. E.g., City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, 507 U.S. 410, 424, 113 S.Ct. 1505, 123 L.Ed.2d 99 (1993) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis in original); Schaumburg, 444 U.S.
recognizing that noncommercial speech is accorded greater protection under the first amendment than is commercial speech and striking down ordinance that imposed a greater restriction on political than on commercial billboards holding that cincinnati could not ban commercial newsracks from public property while allowing noncommercial newsracks even if  the city might entirely prohibit the use of newsracks on public property holding not only does cincinnatis categorical ban on commercial newsracks place too much importance on the distinction between commercial and noncommercial speech but in this case the distinction bears no relationship whatsoever to the particular interests that the city has asserted recognizing a traditional distinction between the public and governmental acts of sovereign states on the one hand and their private and commercial acts on the other recognizing this distinction