Tyrus (and Pete)-

The fact of the matter is that the government does not have the right to censor speech simply because they object to the content of that speech.

To Pete's argument that this is "commercial speech," I disagree. This is not advertising, solicitation to do business, etc. This is a business expressing itself on the tools of business. If traditional commerical speech is a newspaper advertisement for a plumber, and traditional non-commercial speech is a newspaper running a "down with the local plumber's union" editorial -- this falls closer to non-commercial. More appropriately, if this is less-protected commercial speech, than The Bootlegger's hoisting of "Lorraine Hunt for Lt. Governor" signs in their bar area would also be commercial speech. And obviously the latter is not. Nonetheless, even commercial speech is entitled to 1st Am. protection. The way I remember Gerald Gunther teaching it to me back in the day was that if the primary thing the state objects to is the PARTICULAR MESSAGE, then the legislation is overreaching.

Tyrus- your example is a much better example of why I feel I'm correct. If Ralph Englestadt ran a newspaper, and the state said he would be put out of business for running an editorial that praised Hitler, no one would have accepted that. If he were a doctor, and the state threatened to take his license away if he didn't remove photos of Adolph Hitler from his office waiting room, no one would accept that. Being licensed as a physician is just as much a privillege as being licensed to operate a casino. But no one would ever accept the idea of the medical licensing board threatening to suspend a doctor's licensse over his politics -- no matter how distasteful those politics. If someone would explain to me how casinos are different, I would gladly debate them on it. I just don't see it.

Now my complaint here is that the NGC is attempting to regulate "decency" in casinos in a way that no other state or federal regulatory agency is permitted to regulate "decency." Case in point -- porn star chips, or a "Pink Taco" NCV, being pulled. The club chips are anothe rexample of them overstretching their bounds.

The fact that Ralph Englestadt refused to fight them is proof only of the power they wield. He may have won, but they would have used their wide discretion in other matters to drain him of a lot more money during the course of the fight. Better to just let them have their way. Sounds a bit like someone using totalitarian tactics to stop a man from honoring a MUCH WORSE totalitarian leader. Certainly not comparable -- but ironic nonetheless.

There is a reason that some of the most important Free Speech cases in America have the name LARRY FLYNT in their title. A man like Flynt has nothing to lose in the court of public opinion, and he is willing to risk everything purely to prove he's right. That's probably why he'd never be granted a casino license in Nevada. Too bad -- he might force the Supreme COurt to reign in the NGC.

Sorry if this was long or boring. Sorry in advance for typos. All dissenting opinions are welcome and eagerly anticipated.