Which of the following is NOT a reason for an unconstitutional limit of rights?

The reasoning behind the choice that states a limit is "permissible for public safety" is that government entities can impose certain restrictions on individual rights when there is a legitimate concern for public safety. This can include regulations that are deemed necessary to maintain order, protect citizens, or prevent harm. Such restrictions are often justified under the law, especially when they are narrowly tailored to address specific public safety concerns and do not unnecessarily infringe on individual rights.

In contrast, the other terms mentioned describe fundamental issues that can lead to rights being deemed unconstitutional. "Void for vagueness" refers to laws that are not clearly defined, leading to confusion about what is permissible; "overbroad restrictions" protect against laws that infringe on rights beyond what is necessary; and "clarity" refers to the necessity of laws being clearly articulated to ensure individuals understand their rights and obligations. Therefore, the option focusing on the permissibility of restrictions for public safety does not align with the context of unconstitutional limits.