With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (Breyer, J., concurring in part). See also Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAG, 528 U.S. 377, 402 (2000) (Breyer, J., concurring). I would ask whether the statutes strike a reasonable balance between their speech-restricting and speech-enhancing consequences. Or do they instead impose restrictions on speech that are disproportionate when measured against their corresponding privacy and speech-related benefits, taking into account the kind, the importance, and the extent of these benefits, as well as the need for the restrictions in order to secure those benefits? What this Court has called “strict scrutiny” — with its strong presumption against constitutionality — is normally out of place where, as here, important competing constitutional interests are implicated. See ante, at 518 (<HOLDING>); ante, at 533 (“important interests to be

A: recognizing conflict between circuits
B: recognizing possible conflict between the cases
C: recognizing conflict between interests of the highest order
D: recognizing conflict
C.