The law was found to be unconstitutional because it would hinder protected speech among adults.

This case was seen as a victory for proponents of a less strict definition of the first amendment and protected speech.

First, the plaintiff must prove that the activity they were allegedly disciplined for was indeed protected speech.

The court decided that because these employees were workers for the state, their study was not a form of protected speech.

Traditionally, however, if the speech did not fall within one of the above categorical exceptions, it was protected speech.