to ordinance interpreted as regulating conduct near foreign embassies “when the police reasonably believe that a threat to the security or peace of the embassy is present”); Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U.S. 611, 616, 88 S.Ct. 1335, 20 L.Ed.2d 182 (1968) (rejecting vagueness challenge to ordinance prohibiting protests that “unreasonably interfere” with access to public buildings); Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77, 79, 69 S.Ct. 448, 93 L.Ed. 513 (1949) (rejecting vagueness challenge to sound ordinance forbidding “loud and raucous” sound amplification); Am. Ass’n of People with Disabilities v. Herrera, 580 F.Supp.2d 1195, 1241 (D.N.M.2008) (Browning, J.)(upholding New Mexico’s regulation of third-party voter-registration drives against a void-for t. 1633, 40 L.Ed.2d 15] (1974)(plurality)(<HOLDING>); [416 U.S.] at 164 [94 S.Ct. 1633] (Powell,
holding employment protection standard not impermissibly vague in regulating speech of federal employees holding that where the employment of the injured employees was the occasion of the injury the injuries arose out of employment holding unconstitutional a federal law imposing a prior restraint on a broad range of speech by all federal employees noting that a widespread blanket prohibition on governmental employees potential speech gives rise to far more serious concerns than could any single supervisory decision recognizing that code is speech holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection