Supreme Court itself has recognized that States have an important interest in protecting the public from deceptive business practices. See, e.g., Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass’n, 436 U.S. 447, 460, 98 S.Ct. 1912, 56 L.Ed.2d 444 (1978) (citing the “general interest in protecting consumers and regulating commercial transactions” in stating that “[t]he state interests implicated in this case are particularly strong”); see also, e.g., ARC Am. Corp., 490 U.S. at 101, 109 S.Ct. 1661 (stating that “the long history of state common-law and statutory remedies against ... unfair business practices” makes “plain that this is an area traditionally regulated by the States”); Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626, 651, 105 S.Ct. 2265, 85 L.Ed.2d 652 (1985) (<HOLDING>). Those principles and precedents compel the
recognizing the states interest in preventing deception of consumers recognizing that the states interest in preventing the premature release of individuals who have already proven their dangerousness to society by committing a criminal act outweighs the acquittees interest in avoiding continued confinement holding that a bylaw was plainly designed in the interest of preventing competition holding that the government interest in preventing crime is compelling holding that defendants interest in preventing the impairment of its performance outweighed plaintiffs interest in disseminating racist materials anonymously through the mail