Peter Protester, a fairly well-known rabble-rouser, is fired up about President Trump's border wall. He and a group of like-minded individuals decide to head down to border and protest where construction crews are gathering to begin work on the latest stretch of wall.

Peter and his group march on the sidewalks, hold up signs and chant. The protest is peaceful, but FBI agents descend upon the protesters and arrest all of them. They are charged with violating a new law, which states that it is now illegal to protest President Trump's border wall.

Meantime, Richie Reporter is sitting at his desk at the Nogales International newspaper when the phone rings with the tip about the arrests at the border. The caller says Peter Protester has a criminal past and that Richie can access the police report online, which details Peter's past crime.

Richie accesses the Phoenix Police Report Archive Division website and finds Peter's police report from 10-years ago. It says that Peter was arrested and recommended he be charged with bank robbery. Richie pulls several quotes from the report, including one which states, "Peter Protester was seen in the vicinity of the First National Bank before the robbery and was apprehended with $300 cash afterward. This officer believes he robbed the bank."

Richie reaches out to Peter, who is now behind bars for the protest charges, and asks him about the prior arrest. Peter says, "I don't want to talk about anything from the past, but I did not rob any banks."

Richie writes a story about the prior arrests, and includes the quotes from the police report, as well as Peter's denial. But it turns out, Peter did not rob the bank. He was never charged or convicted and Peter had an alibi that completely cleared him back then.

1.Is the protest law that Peter is being charged with violating constitutional? Why or why not? Use IRAC in your answer.

2.If Peter sues Richie for libel, will the lawsuit succeed? Why or why not? Please use IRAC in your answer.