1) What questions must a court answer to decide if the government may restrict "commercial speech"? 2) What "interest" (purpose) was New York City advancing by enacting the law limiting advertising inside Uber/Lyft vehicles? 3) keeping the values underlying free speech in mind, do you believe that New York City's "interest" (purpose) in limiting speech in Uber/Lyft vehicles is "substantial" (important) enough to justify the limitation? Explain your reasoning