context: It does not "propose a commercial transaction" and is therefore not commercial speech. Because it is not commercial speech, the book is entitled to the full panoply of First Amendment protections.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 255 F.3d 1185, 1185-86
citation_a.parenthetical: speech at issue not "commercial speech," and therefore entitled to full First Amendment protection
citation_a.sentence: Hoffman, 255 F.3d at 1185-86 (speech at issue not “commercial speech,” and therefore entitled to full First Amendment protection); cf. Dawning v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 265 F.3d 994, 1002 & n. 2 (9th Cir.2001) (Abercrombie’s catalog, which used the plaintiffs photograph without permission to promote its clothing, was “commercial in nature and, therefore, not entitled to the full First Amendment protection”).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.parenthetical: Abercrombie's catalog, which used the plaintiffs photograph without permission to promote its clothing, was "commercial in nature and, therefore, not entitled to the full First Amendment protection"
citation_b.sentence: Hoffman, 255 F.3d at 1185-86 (speech at issue not “commercial speech,” and therefore entitled to full First Amendment protection); cf. Dawning v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 265 F.3d 994, 1002 & n. 2 (9th Cir.2001) (Abercrombie’s catalog, which used the plaintiffs photograph without permission to promote its clothing, was “commercial in nature and, therefore, not entitled to the full First Amendment protection”).