But a critical difference between that case and the case sub judice is that Ladue banned nearly all residential signs. Governmental action generally will not be invalidated for failing to leave open ample alternative channels of communication unless an entire medium of public expression across a particular community has been foreclosed. See Hill, 530 U.S. at 726, 120 S.Ct. 2480; Metromedia, 453 U.S. at 525-27, 101 S.Ct. 2882 (Brennan, J., concurring). The Supreme Court has been especially hesitant to permit municipalities to completely close off channels of communi cation that provide inexpensive means of disseminating political messages. See, e.g., City of Ladue, 512 U.S. at 54-56, 114 S.Ct. 2038; Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 146, 63 S.Ct. 862, 87 L.Ed, 1313 (1943) (<HOLDING>); Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444,
holding that a claim under the first amendment overbreadth doctrine will not succeed unless  the challenged statute itself will significantly compromise recognized first amendment protections of parties not before the court recognizing first amendment retaliation right holding a contribution restriction for minors was invalid because the statute was not closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgment of first amendment freedoms holding invalid under the first amendment a statute banning doortodoor distribution of handbills and circulars recognizing first amendment and fourteenth amendment interests in inmate correspondence