179. The court held that in light of other provisions of the preliminary injunction, “the additional requirement in the court’s order that the Help Clinic affirmatively state that it does not perform abortions is merely redundant and unnecessary to accomplish the objective of preventing false and deceptive activity.” Id. First Resort does not allege nor is there any evidence that the Ordinance is overbroad or internally redundant. Next, First Resort asserts, in an entirely conclusory manner, that it “is not a commercial speaker merely because it fun-draises .... ” Dkt. 91, 7. As a general matter, First Resort is correct that fund-raising per se is not considered commercial speech. See Schaumburg v. Citizens for Better Environment, 444 U.S. 620, 632, 100 S.Ct. 826, 63 L.Ed.2d 73 (1980) (<HOLDING>). That principle, however, is inapposite to
recognizing that noncommercial speech is accorded greater protection under the first amendment than is commercial speech and striking down ordinance that imposed a greater restriction on political than on commercial billboards holding that it is not holding that speech about financial assistance and handling racial discrimination does not qualify as protected speech holding that charitable solicitation is not commercial speech because it does more than inform private economic decisions and is not primarily concerned with providing information about the characteristics and costs of goods and services holding that information pamphlets are properly characterized as commercial speech