— substantially advance the asserted interest. See FCC v. League of Women Voters of Cal., 468 U.S. 364, 104 S.Ct. 3106, 82 L.Ed.2d 278 (1984) (striking-down ban on editorializing by noncommercial educational broadcast stations receiving federal funds where prohibition did not substantially promote asserted interest); Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 98 S.Ct. 1407 (same for prohibition on certain corporate speech). Thus the Court has invalidated restrictions on speech in eases where the differential treatment of speakers by a partial regulation remained unjustified in terms related to the asserted interest, or where the regulation did not substantially accomplish the asserted goal. See also Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co., 443 U.S. 97, 104-05, 99 S.Ct. 2667, 2672, 61 L.Ed.2d 399 (1979) (<HOLDING>). But see R.A.V., — U.S. at -, 112 S.Ct. at
holding statute prohibiting newspapers from publishing juvenile defendants name unconstitutional because inter alia in absence of regulation of electronic media it did not accomplish the stated purpose recognizing that even evidence of a defendants and a witnesss prior bad acts was admissible to show inter alia the defendants familiarity with the witness holding that comment on defendants silence was not reversible error because inter alia it did not have the effect of being probative on guilt or innocence holding inter alia that common law claims were preempted holding that there is an inference from the existence of a blank for the name of defendants lawyer and from the absence of any evidence to the contrary that defendant was not represented by counsel