case, however, the over-breadth doctrine does not apply. Sections 1037(a)(3) and (4) specifically require as an element that the emails be “commercial.” “Commercial electronic mail message” is defined in 15 U.S.C. § 7702. However, the overbreadth doctrine does not apply to commercial speech. Village of Hoffman, 455 U.S. at 496-97, 102 S.Ct. 1186 (citing Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm’n, 447 U.S. 557, 565 n. 8, 100 S.Ct. 2343, 65 L.Ed.2d 341 (1980)). This is because “commercial speech is more hardy, less likely to be ‘chilled,’ and not in need of surrogate litigators.” Board of Trustees of State University of New York v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 481, 109 S.Ct. 3028, 106 L.Ed.2d 388 (1989). But see S.O.C.,. Inc. v. County of Clark, 152 F.3d 1136, 1143 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Because it is clear the challenged portion of
holding that speech about financial assistance and handling racial discrimination does not qualify as protected speech recognizing that code is speech holding that the plaintiffs right to political speech is fully in accord with the publics interest in free speech and association holding that when protected speech is inextricable from unprotected speech the court will treat the entire message as protected holding that statute reaching beyond purely commercial speech to chill fully protected speech can merit application of the overbreadth doctrine