As with the injunction in
Kaun, we have narrowly construed the provisions of the district court's injunction in order to preserve it from the constitutional difficulties that a broader reading would present. However, we caution district courts, wherever possible, to craft injunctions that are not in need of narrowing constructions by this Court. Although we did not strike down the injunction in
Kaun, we expressed our serious concerns regarding the potential breadth with which the language used by that district court could be read.
Kaun, 827 F.2d at 1150, 1151. Rather than simply repeating that language and depending on this Court's restrictive reading to avoid constitutional complications, the district court should have drafted in the first instance an injunction that was narrowly tailored to prohibit only those activities that can be restrained consistent with the First Amendment. However, as in
Kaun, we have construed this district court's injunction narrowly and conclude that under this restrictive reading, the injunction does not violate appellants' First Amendment rights.