The following excerpt is from Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa, D.C. No. 8:06-cv-00233-DOC-MLG, No. 10-56854 (9th Cir. 2013):
We conclude that 2-61 is overbroad, because it unnecessarily sweeps a substantial amount of non-disruptive, protected speech within its prohibiting language. See Vlasak v. Super. Ct. of Cal. ex rel. Cnty. of L.A., 329 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2003). In White, the court explained that, while a
Page 24
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.