context: Thus, I can find no meaningful vagueness-related differences between California's law and the New York law upheld in Ginsberg. And if there remain any vagueness problems, the state courts can cure them through interpretation.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.parenthetical: relying on the fact that New York Court of Appeals would read a knowledge requirement into the statute
citation_a.sentence: Cf. Ginsberg, 390 U.S., at 644, 88 S. Ct. 1274, 20 L. Ed. 2d 195 (relying on the fact that New York Court of Appeals would read a knowledge requirement into the statute); Berry v. Santa Barbara, 40 Cal. App. 4th 1075, 1088-1089, 47 Cal. Rptr. 2d 661, 669 (1995) (reading a knowledge requirement into a statute). Consequently, for purposes of this facial challenge, I would not find the statute unconstitutionally vague.
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.parenthetical: "state statute should not be deemed facially invalid unless it is not readily subject to a narrowing construction by the state courts"
citation_b.sentence: See Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 216, 95 S. Ct. 2268, 45 L. Ed. 2d 125 (1975) (“state statute should not be deemed facially invalid unless it is not readily subject to a narrowing construction by the state courts”).