Final answer:
The First Amendment provides different levels of protection for various types of speech; while political speech is highly protected, commercial speech has more restrictions. Scott Fane's argument may stand if he can demonstrate that the Florida regulation on commercial speech is not content neutral or that it fails to serve a substantial government interest in a reasonable way.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Supreme Court has historically placed a high value on political speech and allowed greater freedoms in this area compared to other types of speech such as commercial speech. However, commercial speech still enjoys protection under the First Amendment, though it is subject to more regulations, especially when it comes to the truthfulness and potential misleading nature of the speech. In the case of Scott Fane, his argument that the Florida regulation violated the First Amendment could be considered under the lens of commercial speech protections. Fane's speech being truthful and not misleading would buttress his argument against the Florida regulation, provided it did not violate any other compelling state interest. The court would need to weigh the state's justification for the regulation against the CPA's right to engage in commercial speech. Additionally, content neutrality is an important principle; laws that limit speech must apply to all content equally, not just target a specific type of speech like commercial solicitation
With regards to Fane's scenario, the regulation would have to be deemed content neutral and necessary to serve a substantial government interest, and it must not be more extensive than required to serve that interest. If Fane could prove that the regulation was unreasonable or not content neutral, it might be deemed unconstitutional.