I have been wondering the same thing. They very clearly abridge on one's freedom of speech, so if they have been tested in the courts at all (?) then some menta

I have been wondering the same thing. They very clearly abridge on one's freedom of speech, so if they have been tested in the courts at all (?) then some mental & legal gymnastics were no doubt required to justify them, probably invoking analogies about "tradeoffs" of dubious validity in the justification. If someone knows of any court precedents here, I'd genuinely be interested in hearing & reading about it.