What would your response be to this statement?

1. The ordinance is constitutional to ban on commercial speech under the First Amendment to qualified protection. It could be valid as per the "time, place, and manner" regulation i.e it may be allowed in case of a grand opening. The court prohibits distribution, display, and circulation on the street of "commercial and business advertising matter," It consists of the following parts test whether governmental regulation of commercial speech is constitutional. "In setting the stage for the Constitution, the first article of the compact promised religious toleration for any person "demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner" regardless of that person's mode of worship or religious sentiment. The second article announced a series of rights related to criminal procedure, political equality, and the protection of private property. The third article announced that schools and means of education were to be encouraged, because religion, morality, and knowledge were necessary to "good government and the happiness of mankind." (Cornish, 2020)At the time of election year, each political party used to protest either party's political platform. They are allowed to campaign against each other. Those kinds of Speech are unconstitutional which promotes some types of Commerce. Under few circumstances, the government may lawfully be allowed to compel certain commercial speech, and both Republican party or Democratic party enjoys such lawfully allowed freedom.