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

A: holding employment protection standard not impermissibly vague in regulating speech of federal employees
B: recognizing that code is speech
C: 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
D: holding that where the employment of the injured employees was the occasion of the injury the injuries arose out of employment
A.