women not to have an abortion.” J.A. 366. Of course, this mission gives the Center no license at all to lie to women, and, indeed, there is ho such suggestion here. But it does provide'some latitude in how to broach a sensitive topic. The Center currently explains its opposition to abortion in its “Commitment of Care” pamphlets. But it does so on its own terms. None of that changes the fact that the ordinance forces the Center to utter in its own waiting room words at odds with its foundational beliefs and with the principles of those who have given their working lives to it. The classic First Amendment violation has always been thought to involve an outright prohibition by the state of certain speech, See, e.g., Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 91 S.Ct. 1780, 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971) (<HOLDING>); Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S.Ct.
holding failure to take action may have some bearing on good faith holding that a party may prosecute a claim which arose prior to the appointment of the receiver but may not then execute upon the judgment holding that to prevail on a  1983 claim a plaintiff must allege that the defendant acted under color of state law in other words that there was state action holding that a state may not prosecute someone for wearing a jacket bearing the words fuck the draft holding that it may not