under such a rule. There are innumerable reasons why it may be important for a constable to tell a pedestrian to “move on” — and even if it were possible to list in an ordinance all of the reasons that are known, many are simply unpredictable. Hence the (entirely reasonable) Rule of the city of New York which reads: “No person shall fail, neglect or refuse to comply with the lawful direction or command of any Poliee Officer, Urban Park Ranger, Parks Enforcement Patrol Officer or other [Parks and Recreation] Department employee, indicated verbally, by gesture or otherwise.” 56 RCNY § 1-03(c)(1) (1996). It is one thing to uphold an “as-applied” challenge when a pedestrian disobeys such an order that is unreasonable — or even when a pedestrian asserting some true “liberty” interest (<HOLDING>) disobeys such an order that is reasonable but
holding a political rally for instance holding that the following statement conditional in nature and made at a political rally was not a true threat if they ever make me carry a rifle the first man i want to get in my sights is lbj holding that the kind of political hyperbole indulged in by petitioner at a public rally in washington dc did not constitute a true threat holding that persecution was on account of political opinion because petitioners prosecutorial investigation into acts of political corruption was by its very nature political holding political discharges were unconstitutional