In Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp. (463 U.S. 60 [1983]), the Court considered a Federal statute that prohibited the mailing of unsolicited advertisements for contraceptives. In arguing that the Government's interest in prohibiting such mailings was a substantial one under Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Commn, the Government did not rely on the justifications for the statute that were offered during its passage in 1873. Instead, it "advanced interests that concededly were not asserted when the prohibition was enacted into law." (463 US, at 71.) Rather than rejecting the post hoc rationalization for the restriction, the Court held that the Government's reliance on newly advanced purposes was "permissible since the insufficiency of the original motivation does not diminish other interests that the restriction may now serve." (Supra, at 71.) The Court was evaluating pamphlets conceded to be advertisements for a specific product, condoms, which also contained discussions of public issues such as venereal disease and family planning. It held that the pamphlets were properly characterized as commercial speech. The Court, however, recognized that a different conclusion may be appropriate where the material advertises an activity itself protected by the First Amendment. ( Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp., supra, 463)