Is a law content-based when it imposes financial and regulatory burdens based on the function or purpose of speech?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The State of California classifies some independent contractors as employees based solely on the function or purpose of their speech. The State favors writers, photographers, or videographers who sell speech that the state deems marketing, fine art, graphic design, or related to sound recordings and musical compositions (but not music videos). These favored speakers are exempt from a panoply of employment regulations and taxes and allowed the benefits of operating as independent contractors and small businesses. But workers who produce speech with an unfavored function or purpose are classified as employees subject to more onerous tax and regulatory burdens. Due to these unequal employee classification rules, Petitioners’ freelance members are deprived of longstanding careers as independent contractors and are losing opportunities to publish. The questions presented are: Is a law content-based when it imposes financial and regulatory burdens based on the function or purpose of speech? Does a law that has the effect of depriving classes of speakers of their livelihood by subjecting them to more onerous taxes and regulations impose a First Amendment burden subject to judicial scrutiny? ii LIST OF ALL