clear that a statute that requires such a “license” for the dissemination of ideas is inherently suspect. By placing discretion in the hands of an official to grant or deny a license, such a statute creates a threat of censorship that by its very existence chills free speech____ Under the Secretary’s interpretation, charities whose First Amendment rights are abridged by the fundrais-ing limitation simply would have traded a direct prohibition on their activity for a licensing scheme that, if it is available to them at all, is available only at the unguided discretion of the Secretary of State. Id. at 964 n. 12, 104 S.Ct. at 2851 n. 12 (citations omitted); See also Fernandes v. Limmer, 663 F.2d 619, 631 (5th Cir.1981), cert. dismissed, 458 U.S. 1124, 103 S.Ct. 5, 73 L.Ed.2d 1395 (1982) (<HOLDING>). Thus, in order to qualify as narrowly
holding that where applicant had satisfied all ordinance requirements commissioners could not deny permit simply in their discretion holding that it would be inequitable to allow a town to deny a permit based on a new ordinance after the property owner was denied a permit three times and brought suit to determine the validity of the prior ordinance holding unconstitutional ordinance that gave executive director excessive discretion in deciding whether the grant of a permit would be detrimental to the public holding that the decision whether to grant a continuance lies in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion holding where plan language can be interpreted both to grant discretion and not to grant discretion plan does not unambiguously grant discretion