With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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,

A: holding that defendants ability to pay may be considered in assessing penalty under controlled substances act
B: holding that freedman and presumably fwpbs inc controlled the analysis of a sign ordinance the court considered contentbased
C: holding that the manner a controlled substance is packaged may be considered in establishing intent to sell and deliver
D: holding that state law controlled damage issues
B.