You are now the judge in this case. Read the arguments below and analyze the case.

Argument for Fane: The Florida regulation violates the First Amendment, which protects commercial speech. Fane was not saying anything false or misleading but was just trying to secure business. This is an unreasonable regulation, designed to keep newcomers out of the marketplace and maintain steady business and high prices for established CPAs.

Argument for the Florida Board of Accountancy: Commercial speech deserves$-$and gets$-$a lower level of protection than other speech. This regulation is a reasonable method of ensuring that the level of CPA work in our state remains high. CPAs who personally solicit clients are

obviously in need of business. They are more likely to bend legal and ethical rules to obtain clients and keep them happy and will lower the standards throughout the state. This law is narrowly tailored to support this interest.

$-$Write your case analysis. $($You are going to apply the rule of law to the facts in this case with the goal of coming to an answer to the issue, and a conclusion to the case$).$

Fane was not saying anything false or misleading on the unsolicited phone calls to executives. Therefore, Fane was not violating the rule of law.

$-$What is your conclusion? How do you rule your Honor?