 Justice Stephen Breyer wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment , in which he argued that content @-@ based discrimination should be considered a " rule of thumb , rather than as an automatic ' strict scrutiny ' trigger , leading to almost certain legal condemnation " . Justice Breyer conceded that content @-@ based regulations sometimes reveal weaknesses in the government 's rationale for limiting speech , and that content @-@ based regulations interfere with the " free marketplace of idea [ s ] " . However , he also argued that " virtually all government activities involve speech " , and many involve content @-@ based regulations on speech . Therefore , he concluded that a rule triggering strict scrutiny for all cases involving content @-@ based restrictions would be a " recipe for judicial management of ordinary government regulatory activity " . Justice Breyer argued that instead of the automatic trigger , courts should determine the constitutionality of content @-@ based regulations by " examining the seriousness of the harm to speech , the importance of the countervailing objectives , the extent to which the law will achieve those objectives , and whether there are other , less restrictive ways of doing so " . Although he did not believe strict scrutiny should be applied to the town 's sign ordinance , he agreed that the town 's ordinance was unconstitutional because the town did not provide a rational justification for treating some signs differently than other . 
