U.S. at 732, 120 S.Ct. 2480 (rejecting vagueness challenge to ordinance making it a crime to “approach” another person, without that person’s “consent,” to engage in “oral protest, education, or counseling” within specified distance of health-care facility); Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 332, 108 S.Ct. 1157, 99 L.Ed.2d 333 (1988) (rejecting vagueness concurring in part and concurring in result in part)(agreeing with plurality on this issue); Civil Serv. Comm’n v. Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 576-79 [93 S.Ct. 2880, 37 L.Ed.2d 796] (1973) (considering void-for-vagueness challenge to restriction on government employee speech, though concluding that rule was not impermissi-bly vague); Keyishian v. Bd. of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 603-04 [87 S.Ct. 675, 17 L.Ed.2d 629] (1967) (<HOLDING>). “To find a civil statute void for vagueness,
holding that restriction on government employee speech was unconstitutionally vague holding flag contempt statute unconstitutionally vague holding that attorney disciplinary rule was unconstitutionally vague as applied holding factor b is not unconstitutionally vague holding that essentially equivalent is unconstitutionally vague