locations, nor would it unduly impinge on the lawful communication of information to adult consumers”). Obviously, it is premature to speculate as to what the parameters of appropriate relief would be. 10 . Where commercial speech does concern lawful activity and is not misleading "the government may impose restrictions that advance a substantial' government interest and are no 'more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest.’ " Whitaker v. Thompson, 353 F.3d 947, 952-53 (D.C.Cir.2004) (quoting Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557, 566, 100 S.Ct. 2343, 65 L.Ed.2d 341 (1980)). 11 . The doctrine has its origins in Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127, 136, 81 S.Ct. 523, 5 L.Ed.2d 464 (1961)(<HOLDING>) and United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381
holding that the sherman act does not prohibit  persons from associating together in an attempt to persuade the legislature or the executive to take particular action with respect to a law that would produce a restraint or a monopoly holding ban violated the sherman act holding only that a particular ancillary restraint did not constitute a per se violation of the sherman act and remanding for a determination  of the case under a rule of reason analysis holding that plaintiffs complaint failed to state a claim under section 1 of the sherman act holding that same activity violated  2 of the sherman act