 Additionally , Justice Thomas rejected the town 's assertion that a law is only content based if it " censor [ s ] or favor [ s ] " specific viewpoints or ideas . The town argued that its sign code was not unconstitutional because it neither endorsed nor suppressed any particular viewpoints or ideas . However , Justice Thomas clarified that a statute is content @-@ based if it singles out a specific subject , even though it may not target ideas or viewpoints within that subject matter . Furthermore , he also rejected the Ninth Circuit 's conclusion that the ordinance was content @-@ neutral because it targeted specific classes of speakers , rather than the content of their speech . Although he recognized that speaker @-@ based restrictions were only " the beginning — not the end — of the inquiry " , Justice Thomas held that " laws favoring some speakers over others demand strict scrutiny when the legislature ’ s speaker preference reflects a content preference " . 
