Lowe, the Court was presented with an injunction that absolutely prohibited the petitioner from "publishing nonpersonalized investment advice and commentary in securities newsletters."    472 U.S. at 183, 105 S.Ct. at 2559.  Under the registration provisions of the Investment Advisers Act, the SEC could require individuals who provided investment advice to register in accordance with the Act, and could seek injunctions against unregistered persons who gave such advice.  As both the opinion of the Court and Justice White's concurrence noted, this aspect of the Investment Advisers Act was basically a scheme for licensing speakers, and as such powerfully implicated the First Amendment, for "[t]he struggle for the freedom of the press was primarily directed against the power of the licensor."   Lowe, 472according to the SEC, on how much of the text produced is actually used by the magazine.


36
The fundamental difficulty with the SEC's interpretation of "consideration" in 17(b) as applied to this case, involving a magazine in many respects similar to one of general circulation, is that one of the objects of its requested injunction, the receipt of free text, inevitably implicates interference with fully protected journalistic activity.  In other words, so long as consideration is defined in accordance with the material used in the publication, the very definition of consideration will necessarily constitute the line between the sphere of permitted regulation--disclosure of the omitted fact--and wholly protected speech.  The crucial factor that distinguishes the feature articles from the balance of the magazine--and which constitutionally justifies regulation--is