Page:Novoa v. Diaz.pdf/125

 (2010) (Stevens, J., dissenting)). “And such objective discussion, if attainable, is even more difficult with respect to controversial matters like the eight prohibited concepts here, where many, including Defendants, question their legitimacy.” Id.

Lacking explicit standards to circumscribe enforcement of “objectivity,” Defendants can weaponize this term to further discredit the eight concepts in the “marketplace of ideas,” which now permits endorsement of only one side of the debate. Accordingly, because this “objectivity” savings clause commands the entire statute, the IFA is impermissibly vague on its face in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Finally, this Court considers the Novoa Plaintiffs’ overbreadth claim. While laws that fail to clearly define their prohibitions are void for vagueness, “[a] clear and precise enactment may nevertheless be ‘overbroad’ if in its reach it prohibits