No, and D’s conviction is upheld.  Sanford’s majority applies what is essentially a “Bad Tendencies” test in this case.  He holds that “a State in the exercise of its police power may punish those who abuse this freedom by utterances inimical to the public welfare, tending to incite to crime, disturb the public peace, or endanger the foundations of organized government and threaten its overthrow by unlawful means…[A restriction on speech] may not be declared unconstitutional unless it is an arbitrary or unreasonable attempt to exercise the authority vested in the State…”