district court relied to support section 578.501’s “in front or about” language, e.g., Frisby, 487 U.S. 474, 108 S.Ct. 2495, 101 L.Ed.2d 420 (1988) (upholding ordinance concerning targeted picketing “in front of’ a particular residence); Douglas v. Brownell, 88 F.3d 1511 (8th Cir.1996) (upholding a ban on picketing “before, about, or immediately adjacent to” a residence), are distinguishable because they involve residences and fixed locations. Section 578.501, by contrast, defines a “funeral” to include “processions” held in connection with burial and cremation. Mo.Rev.Stat. § 578.501(3). Its “floating” buffer-zones, therefore, provide citizens with no guidance as to what locations will be protest and picket-free zones and at what times. See Phelps-Roper v. Taft, 2007 WL 915109 at *6 (<HOLDING>). In addition, Section 578.501 does not limit
holding that instructions are sufficient which substantially follow the language of the statute or use equivalent language holding that an indictment that is substantially in the language of the code is sufficient inform and substance holding that a contractor who had substantially complied with the building specifications substantially performed holding the language of the statute applicable to floating buffer zones was substantially overbroad and burdened substantially more speech than necessary to serve the states interest holding a substantially similar probation condition overbroad