constitutionality of government regulations limiting commercial speech: At the outset, we must determine [1] whether the expression is protected by the First Amendment. For commercial speech to come within that provision, it at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. Next, we ask [2] whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial. If both inquiries yield positive answers, we must determine [3] whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and [4] whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest. Id. at 566, 100 S.Ct. 2343 (Enumeration added). 1. Protected Expression The parties agree that the speech at issue is neither illegal nor misleading under the fir Highway Patrol, 146 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). As the Supreme Court has noted: “The State’s
recognizing minnesotas interest in protecting the interests of the child holding that even after hudson the prisoners privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under bell holding that the governments interest in the welfare of children embraces not only protecting children from physical abuse but also protecting childrens interest in the privacy and dignity of their homes and in the lawfully exercised authority of their parents holding that governments asserted interest in protecting the privacy of arrestees is substantial under central hudson recognizing the sherman acts central interest in protecting the economic freedom of participants in the relevant market