we think, by the accompanying senseless prohibition of speech (and of other activity in the park) by organizations that fail to meet the technical requirements of the ordinance but for one reason or another pose no risk of the evils that those requirements are designed to avoid. On balance, we think the permissive nature of the ordinance furthers, rather than constricts, free speech. Id. Thomas therefore sets the standard for addressing “as applied” prior restraints on speech resulting from the administration of licensing legislation. Contrast Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc., 348 F.3d at 1281-82 (determining that a sign ordinance was content neutral and, consequently, governed by Thomas) with Solantic, LLC v. City of Neptune Beach, 410 F.3d 1250, 1269-70 (11th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Because 48-91 is not, under Lakewood,
holding that the manner a controlled substance is packaged may be considered in establishing intent to sell and deliver holding that defendants ability to pay may be considered in assessing penalty under controlled substances act holding that state law controlled damage issues holding  1227a2bi limits the meaning of controlled substance for removal purposes to the substances controlled under  802 holding that freedman and presumably fwpbs inc controlled the analysis of a sign ordinance the court considered contentbased