WPC*, 2a BKf Z CG Times3|w|Xw PE37XP",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d|8|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddxxdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCxCddoddCdYds]xUvdYYCCCCx~oxoY~NYdYC8YooYdYxsdxdd~YYxoxxx~CdxYxxxxCCdddddddxCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`LHP LaserJet 5SiHPLAS5SI.PRSXw PE37\<$cXP2+ [ f k Z X X01Í ÍX81Í Í3|w",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d|8|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddxxdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCxCddoddCdYds]xUvdYYCCCCx~oxoY~NYdYC8YooYdYxsdxdd~YYxoxxx~CdxYxxxxCCdddddddxCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`LHP LaserJet 5SiHPLAS5SI.PRSXw PE37\<$cXP2+]f tX$2&CG TimesCG Times Bold",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxN`xoCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddd4dddddCddddddddo8dddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddpddddxodddXXddXddXdddddooL8doddNopddo8PdN8ppoddXXdpLoNpLodPDdopoopodXYXodoodddCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddxxddd~ooCsdF"dsd9dCCxCddoddCdYds`xUvdddCCCCxoxoYNYYYN8YooYdYxxdxddYYxoxxxNdxYxxxxCCdddddddxCxdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L8wC;,|Xw PE37XPD7zC;, EXz_ pi7XV"G($,}hG PE37hPb Ha i` 3_ y^ ] . "i~'K2^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx_ Y-ԍ See supra notes 9-13.> Historically, state and local government policies toward legalized   wgambling have oscillated between prohibition and regulated legalization, as the social problems   gambling stimulates have risen and fallen. What is needed is legislative flexibility, so that the   people's representatives can respond to the varying consequences of legalized gambling. If court   jdecisions decree unbridled advertising of "truthful, non-misleading speech" however, the   legislature's flexibility will be impaired. In the case of gambling, the consequences may be stark:   jwhatever is legal may be advertised; only a prohibition of gambling will justify a ban on   kadvertising. More disturbing, whatever gambling is legal anywhere may be advertised   everywhere. No local prohibition of gambling will be meaningful, and communities will be less   Jcapable of insulating themselves and their children from the deleterious influence of gambling.   ZDoctrinal rigidity in this type of case would seem to be the enemy of federalism, of flexible   representative government, and of peoples' right to make choices to protect their community and   their children. Central Hudson, as applied after 44 Liquormart, does not totally foreclose such flexibility. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. POLITZ, Chief Judge, dissenting:   Having concluded previously that the federal ban on broadcast advertisement of casino gambling  Y-  fails to satisfy the requirements of Central Hudson,y Y- xԍ Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 100 S.Ct. 2343, 65 L.Ed.2d 341 (1980). the stricter standard employed by the  Y|-  =Supreme Court in 44 Liquormart| Y@ - xԍ 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484, 116 S.Ct. 1495, 134 L.Ed.2d 711 (1996). only strengthens my convictions. Thus, for the reasons  Ye-assigned in my prior dissent, I must continue to dissent.e Y#- x.ԍ Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Ass'n v. United States, 69 F.3d 1296, 1303 (5th Cir.1995) (Politz, C.J., dissenting).   KThe failure of the Justices to reach an agreement in 44 Liquormart about the specifics of the   parameters of the constitutional review to be applied to commercial speech restrictions deprives   the lower courts of the guidance a coherent, dispositive framework would have provided for   evaluating these claims. The divergent analyses unnecessarily blur the boundaries of commercial" G 0*0*0* " speech.   YA close reading of 44 Liquormart discloses, however, that a majority of the Court felt strongly   that truthful commercial speech about lawful services should enjoy greater first amendment   protections than that previously afforded. It appears manifest that the Court will no longer defer   to "legislative judgment," grant "broad discretion" for "paternalistic purposes," accept the  Yv-  x"greater-includes-the-lesser" reasoning, or defer to the "vice" exception.fv Y-ԍ 44 Liquormart, 517 U.S. 484, 116 S.Ct. 1495, 134 L.Ed.2d 711.f Read together, the   Kopinions in 44 Liquormart teach that the government must use direct methods of controlling   Jdisfavored behavior. This, combined with the heavy burden of proof that is now placed on the   government, substantially undercuts the validity of laws, such as the statute at issue here, which restrict nondeceptive commercial information.   + If not so viewed previously, it must now be recognized that the statutory advertising proscription   at bar herein simply fails to advance directly the government's asserted interests and,   ,accordingly, must be deemed overbroad under the heightened standards of 44 Liquormart. The   numerous exceptions and inconsistencies contained in the publication ban abundantly undermine   and are adverse to the asserted government interests, precluding the material advancement  Yy-  thereof.yy Y- xԍ Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Ass'n, 69 F.3d at 1304. See also Valley Broadcasting  xCo. v. United States, 107 F.3d 1328 (9th Cir.1997), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 1050,  xY140 L.Ed.2d 114 (1998) (finding the same ban at issue here to violate the first amendment after 44 Liquormart because of the numerous exceptions). In addition, given the many exceptions, the government has totally failed to meet its burden of proving that a nationwide ban is mandated. I respectfully dissent. rXX(# X(# X(# X(# X(# X(# X(# X(# "! 0*0*0*""ԌX(# X(# X(# X(# X(# X(# X(# X(# X(# X(# X(# X