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.

Absolutely. That's perfectly within the realm of what should be done.

Imagine for a moment you owed money to the city of Las Vegas. You owed the money in October, but you ignored it for all these months. You think they'd take action against you? Of course they would.

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.

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.

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.

The statement 'we don't want to do business with you people' _ you people isn't anyone but John McDonald.

The discrimination was aimed at John McDonald. Domino's itself viewed JWM as John McDonald.