the limits prescribed by these provisions. If the CFTC were apply these laws more broadly to restrict protected speech that cannot be shown to be fraudulent as a matter of fact, then a different case would be presented. In particular, if the CFTC were to attempt to punish statements that are more a matter of opinion or belief, rather than statements that could be empirically shown to be false or deceptive, then more serious constitutional issues would exist. Cf. Riley, 487 U.S. at 803, 108 S.Ct. 2667 (Scalia, J., concurring) (“It is axiomatic that, although fraudulent misrepresentations of facts can be regulated, the dissemination of ideas cannot be regulated to prevent it from being unfair or unreasonable.”) (citations omitted); Argello v. City of Lincoln, 143 F.3d 1152 (8th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). 2. Compelled speech. CTS seeks to prevent the
holding that the government interest in preventing crime is compelling holding that discrimination against a municipal employee could trigger municipal liability under  1983 through official policy or custom holding that citys interest in preventing fraud could not justify municipal ordinance against fortunetelling holding the frsa preemption exception did not cover regulation by municipal ordinance recognizing the states interest in preventing deception of consumers