Cited by

Ass’n, 564 U.S. 786, 799 (2011); see also State v. Melchert-Dinkel , (stating same).

See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 747 (3d ed. 2002) (“to spur on”); The American Heritage Dictionary 606 (3d ed. 1992) (“[ t]o stimulate; spur”); (reasoning that the word “encourages,” in a different statute, “broadly include[s] speech that provides support or 9 rallies courage”).

5 “does not violate the First Amendment.” State v. Melchert-Dinkel

State v. Melchert-Dinkel , see also State by Humphrey v. Casino Mktg.

If the “local” restriction were invalid, we would not invalidate the entire ordinance, but would “attempt to retain as much of the original [ordinance] as possible while striking the portions that render the [ordinance] unconstitutional.” (noting that severance is permissible unless the remaining provisions are “incomplete” or “incapable of being executed in accordance with legislative intent”).

“[T]he Supreme Court has long permitted some content-based restrictions in a few limited areas, in which speech is of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from it is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.” (quotation omitted).

A statute’s offending language may be severed unless the “valid provisions” and the “void provisions” are “so essentially and inseparably connected,” or if the “remaining valid provisions, s tanding alone, are incomplete and are incapable of being executed in accordance with the legislative intent.”

Appellate courts “attempt to retain as much of the original statute as possible while striking the portions that render the statute unconstitutional.”

State v. Melchert-Dinkel , , 24 (Minn. 2014) (quoting State v. Shattuck , , 143 (Minn. 2005) ).

abridging the freedom of speech.” (quoting U.S. Const, amend.

This court reviews constitutional challenges de novo, and the party challenging the statute bears the “burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute is unconstitutional.” Machholz, d at 419 (quotation omitted).

SYLLABUS The district court’s jury instructions on assisting another in taking the other’s life were not unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment because the instructions followed the language of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s

8 The first step in an overbreadth analysis is to construe the challenged statute.

“We review the constitutionality of statutes de novo.”