Table of Authori for Mississippi Gay Alliance and Anne Debary v. Bill Goulock, 536 F.2d 1073
Contents:
- MISSISSIPPI GAY ALLIANCE V. GOULOCK, 541 F.2D 281 (5TH CIR. 1976)
- MISSISSIPPI GAY ALLIANCE V. GOUDELOCK
- MISSISSIPPI GAY ALLIANCE V. GOULOCK, NO. 74-4035
MISSISSIPPI GAY ALLIANCE V. GOULOCK, 541 F.2D 281 (5TH CIR. 1976)
Mississippi Gay Alliance v. Goulock, 541 F.2d 281 (5th Cir. 1976) se opn om the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circu * mississippi gay alliance v goudelock *
Mississippi Gay Alliancev.
MISSISSIPPI GAY ALLIANCE and Anne DeBary, Platiffs-Appellants,. To the ntrary, is a se which a nebulo group, the Mississippi Gay Alliance, reprentg self to be an associatn "basilly prised of homosexuals", seeks judicial pulsn agast a stunt newspaper requirg publitn of an advertisement which that paper do not want to publish.
MISSISSIPPI GAY ALLIANCE V. GOUDELOCK
Opn for Mississippi Gay Alliance v. Goulock, 541 F.2d 281 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-prof dited to creatg high qualy open legal rmatn. * mississippi gay alliance v goudelock *
On Augt 16, 1973, a female, the self-styled chairwoman of the Mississippi Gay Alliance, prented a proposed paid advertisement to The Reflector, the stunt newspaper at Mississippi State Universy.
MISSISSIPPI GAY ALLIANCE V. GOULOCK, NO. 74-4035
* mississippi gay alliance v goudelock *
Wherpon, su was filed agast the edor and others, allegg that the refal to prt the paid advertisement and announcement prived the Gay Alliance of s First Amendment rights and prayg that the fendants be orred to prt the rejected material. The su also sought an orr requirg fendants to prt future advertisements and announcements tenred by the Gay Alliance. As a matter of fact, the ntext of the matter before , this Court has held that the Universy thori uld not have orred the newspaper not to publish the Gay Alliance advertisement, had chosen to do so, see Bazaar v.
Sce there is not the slightt whisper that the Universy thori had anythg to do wh the rejectn of this material offered by this off-mp cell of homosexuals, sce such officials uld not lawfully have done so, and sce the rerd really suggts nothg but discretn exercised by an edor chosen by the stunt body, we thk the First Amendment terdicts judicial terference wh the edorial cisn.