... for distinguishing between "commercial" and "non-commercial" speech, in terms of First Amendment protections, very satisfactory, Pete. I don't see anything in the First Amendment which justifies the differential treatment and join with Hugo Black in believing that when the Constitution says "no law" may abridge freedom of speech, it means "no law".

Not disagreeing with your analysis that this would be considered "commercial speech"; it almost certainly would, if only because such an interpretation would increase the government's ability to exercise control (which, after all, is the REAL reason for this and every other exception to our constitutional rights). Just expressing my never-ending frustration with the fact that the courts let the government get away with this stuff.

----- jim o\-S