must be reversed and the case dismissed. JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT REVERSED; CASE DISMISSED. All justices concur except APPEL and MANSFIELD, JJ., who take no part. 1 . We recognize the United States Supreme Court has indicated it is an open question "whether the New York Times standard can apply to an individual defendant rather than to a media defendant.” Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 133 n. 16, 99 S.Ct. 2675, 2687 n. 16, 61 L.Ed.2d 411, 430 n. 16 (1979); accord Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 20 n. 6, 110 S.Ct. 2695, 2706 n. 6, 111 L. Ed. 2d 1, 18 n. 6 (1990); Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 779 n. 4, 106 S.Ct. 1558, 1565 n. 4, 89 L.Ed.2d 783, 794 n. 4 (1986); see also Obsidian Fin. Grp., LLC v. Cox, 740 F.3d 1284, 1290 (9th Cir.2014) (<HOLDING>). Yet, in a case in which the Court rejected a
holding that first amendment protections apply to compelled speech as well as restrictions on speech holding that various fifth and sixth amendment protections apply to juvenile proceedings recognizing first amendment retaliation right recognizing the supreme court has never resolved whether first amendment protections apply beyond the institutionalized press 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