Under what condition can the government limit expressive freedom according to the overbreadth doctrine?

The correct choice centers on the principle that for the government to limit expressive freedom effectively, restrictions must be narrowly crafted. This means that any law or regulation affecting free expression should specifically target the harmful behavior it seeks to address without unnecessarily infringing on protected speech.

Narrowly crafted restrictions ensure that laws do not extend too broadly, thereby avoiding the potential chilling effect on free speech where individuals might refrain from expressing themselves due to fear of overreach. This aligns with First Amendment jurisprudence, which protects expressive freedom unless there is a compelling governmental interest and the means to limit that expression are appropriately tailored to achieve that interest.

While considering the other conditions, a lack of a governmental interest would not justify any restrictions on expression, emergency situations do not automatically warrant broad censorship, and simply enacting a law does not grant authority to limit expressive freedoms. The focus on the need for precise, carefully defined parameters in any legislation reflects an understanding of balancing societal interests with individual rights in a way that protects constitutional freedoms.