it must be considered overbroad and unconstitutional on its face. They further assert that the act is not susceptible to a narrowing construction which would shrink it to constitutional proportions and therefore the Appellate Division’s attempt to do so by the imposition of a monetary enforcement threshold of $750 was legally ineffective. We can agree with one aspect of plaintiffs’ argument. The act would be overreaching if its terms were to be enforced literally and inflexibly. Applied in this fashion, the oppressive effect of the statute on virtually all individuals engaging in nonpartisan as well as political conduct would far exceed the outermost bounds of its legitimate governmental purpose. Cf. New York Civil Liberties Union, Inc. v. Acito, 459 F.Supp. 75 (S.D.N.Y.1978) (<HOLDING>). The trial court found that “[t]here can be
holding that washingtons harassment statute was unconstitutionally overbroad because it covered constitutionally protected speech holding new yorks disclosure law unconstitutionally overbroad holding portions of the online solicitation of a minor statute unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the first amendment holding the improper photography or visual recording statute unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the first amendment holding that a statute must burden a substantial amount of protected speech to be unconstitutionally overbroad