has not demonstrated a clearly established constitutional right. In Goldschmidt, the defendant prosecutor sent to the plaintiff attorney a letter, advising the attorney that his newspaper advertisement appeared to violate the Illinois statute prohibiting advertising for dissolution of marriage. The attorney continued advertising despite the letter, and the Illinois legislature subsequently repealed the statute. Nevertheless, the attorney sued the prosecutor, alleging a violation of his First Amendment rights. The Goldschmidt court held that the mere threat of deprivation of First Amendment rights does not constitute adequate injury for § 1983 purposes; rather, plaintiffs must allege an actual deprivation. Id. at 585. See also Reichenberger v. Pritchard, 660 F.2d 280 (7th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). As in Goldschmidt and Reichenberger, in the
holding that owners of bar with nude dancers did not state a  1983 claim based on first amendment rights where they failed to allege interruption of business or expressive activities despite monetary losses recognizing that the first amendment protects the expressive activities associated with the voterregistration process holding that a plaintiff failed to state a claim for a breach of a joint venture agreement where it failed to allege  responsibility for losses holding that plaintiff had failed to state a claim for relief under section 1983 holding that raising chickens is not an expressive act for the purposes of the first amendment