specific phrases was merely representative. Thus, even though defendants have eliminated those two terms from the Revised Grant Terms, the Court must still analyze the Revised Grant Terms as potentially void for vagueness. 30 . In GMHC I, the Court noted that CDC ”ha[d] not set forth a clarification of the disputed terms.” GMHC I, 733 F.Supp. at 639. 31 . This lack of clarification is especially problematic given the inherently subjective nature of the term "offensive.” As plaintiffs point out, the term "offensive” is similar to words like "contemptuous," and "annoy,” which have been declared unconstitutionally vague in other contexts because "what is contemptuous to one man may be a work of art to another,” Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 573, 94 S.Ct. 1242, 1247, 39 L.Ed.2d 605 (1974) (<HOLDING>), and ”[c]on-duct that annoys some people does
holding that restriction on government employee speech was unconstitutionally vague holding that essentially equivalent is unconstitutionally vague holding factor b is not unconstitutionally vague holding flag contempt statute unconstitutionally vague holding that attorney disciplinary rule was unconstitutionally vague as applied