If there is indeed a paucity of these kinds of cases in the Ninth Circuit, this could be used as a precedent.
It's not the job of police to play formal or informal censor.
Proper review is not particularly burdensome, so there is no real need for this. It's like they're saying we don't need judges, we don't want any review at all.
To say, 'don't have it', that's censorship. That's what is being done. That is what is being said by the control board letter and by the sheriff.
It does cause some concern. It raises questions that need to be looked at.
When you have a set of rules, and then government says they don't apply to you -- they only apply when we want them to -- that's a concern.
This is a substantial amount of money. This is not some symbolic type of gesture, this is the procedure to be followed.
Certainly there is nothing that prohibits the commission or the (Gaming) Control Board from saying to properties, you have to be careful about and responsible for the security of any type of venue. But it can't go to content.
I think the people in Business License need to get better guidance before they run into significant constitutional problems. We would be happy to represent the Little Theatre.
It really doesn't matter whether there has been an attempt at an outright ban or merely an attempt to influence these properties. We're still talking about action that is taken under the color of the law and is therefore governmental action that is, frankly, censorship.
