With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a person to criminal prosecution under” the harassment statute); Thelen v. State, 272 Ga. 81, 82, 526 S.E.2d 60 (2000) (relying on Coates v. Cincinnati, the court invalidated on vagueness grounds the proscription of specified conduct which “annoys” others); People v. Klick, 66 Ill.2d 269, 5 Ill.Dec. 858, 362 N.E.2d 329 (1977) (invalidating on overbreadth grounds, based on Coates v. Cincinnati and similar cases, a statute proscribing telephone calls with intent to annoy); State v. Bryan, 259 Kan. 143, 147-148, 910 P.2d 212, 216-217 (1996) (pointing out that, since Coates v. Cincinnati, “[o]ther courts have followed the holding in Coates in determining that statutes prohibiting annoying conduct are impermissibly vague”); State v. Jamgochian, 109 R.I. 17, 24, 279 A.2d 923, 927 (1971) (<HOLDING>); May v. State, 765 S.W.2d 438, 440

A: holding inter alia that common law claims were preempted
B: holding unconstitutional under coates v cincinnati that portion of an ordinance making it unlawful for a person to stand on a sidewalk and inter alia annoy passersby
C: holding that a courts order invalidating part of a city billboard ordinance did not moot a claim for damages arising from that invalidated portion of the ordinance
D: holding unconstitutional an ordinance making it a crime to possess an obscene book without regard to defendants knowledge of books contents
B.