Like the J.Y. Interpretation No. 634, the J.Y. Interpretation No. 734 reaffirmed that the commercial or economic speech should be subject to at least intermediate judicial review. This interpretation has a very important meaning to the increased protection of commercial or economic speech. However, the Interpretation No. 734 failed to clarify the meaning of prior restraint and public forum principle. Regarding the prior restraint, the Interpretation No. 734 could have at least specified the content-based prior restraint should be presumed unconstitutional. As to the public forum, the Interpretation No. 734 did not specify traditional public forum, designated public forum, and non-public forum/all remaining public property, and distinguish different judicial scrutiny like the U.S. Supreme Court, which wastes its efforts to allude to the “public space” in this case. The Interpretation No. 734’s use of “[w]e hereby also noted” to deal with the prior restraint and the public forum leaves many questions unresolved. The author intends to further understand the Interpretation No. 734 by analyzing the relevant topics.