IANAL either, but I'd expect anything that puts onerous restrictions on speech to be unconstitutional. Usually these "over-enthusiastic" laws don't define the r

IANAL either, but I'd expect anything that puts onerous restrictions on speech to be unconstitutional. Usually these "over-enthusiastic" laws don't define the restrictions in a narrow scope. It all boils down to the definition of PII in this law, for example. If it's narrowly and clearly defined it could pass the first amendment test. If it's not clear and instead has the effect of chilling speech because of that, it'll get thrown out. I mean the Supreme Court just threw out the donor disclosure requirement in CA because it could have the effect of stifling free speech.