If Denise Turner Roth was Vice President for Governmental Affairs
and acted as a lobbyist for the taxpayer funded Greensboro Partnership
which funds TREBIC and is a TREBIC member, along with
Greensboro Builders Association, Greensboro Regional REALTORS© Association,
the Piedmont Triad Apartment Association,
National Association of Industrial and Office Parks (NAIOP) NC Piedmont Triad Chapter
Brown Investment Properties, Carroll Companies, D.H. Griffin, Keystone Group, Inc.
Koury Corporation, Richardson Corporation, Samet Corporation,
Signature Property Group, Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP,
D. Stone Builders, Inc., Isaacson Isaacson Sheridan & Fountain, Kotis Properties,
NAI Piedmont Triad, Nexsen Pruet, PLLC, Tuggle Duggins & Meschan, P.A.,
Weaver Investment Co., Alliance Management, Inc., Carruthers & Roth,
Greensboro Partnership, Hagan Properties Inc., Lomax Properties, LLC,
Simpson, Schulman & Beard, Starmount Company and Windsor Investments
and TREBIC members include Roy Carroll, Robbie Perkins,
and the Greensboro Parntership gave the Bonds for Schools Committee $70,000
which also gave the Quarter Cent Tax Committee $10,500
whose Greensboro Economic Development Alliance recieves taxpayer money
whose board members include Linda Shaw and Nancy Vaughan
and TREBIC was directly responsible for eliminating RUCO
with taxpayer funds from the Greensboro Partnership
and Robbie Perkins NAI Piedmont, among multiples of other real estate contributors
to Mr. Perkins Mayoral campaign,
should some be sceptical of information
espoused by Robbie's ex-campaign manager on the Performing Arts Center?
If Jon Bell, Bell Partners, Dr. Linda P. Brady, UNCG,
Charles E. Melvin Jr., Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP
Jim Melvin, Joseph M. Bryan Foundation of Greater GSO
Dan Lynch, Greensboro Economic Development Alliance
and Stephen D. Showefty, Koury Corporation
are all on the Greensboro Partnership Board of Directors
and the Greensboro Partnership funds TREBIC which worked to eliminate RUCO,
could many at the Greensboro Partnership represent the 1%?
Prior restraint or prior censorship is censorship
in which certain material may not be published or communicated...
Prior restraint prevents the censored material
from being heard or distributed at all...
In some countries (e.g., United States, Argentina) prior restraint is forbidden,
subject to certain exceptions, by a constitution.
Prior restraint often takes the form of a legal injunction or government order
prohibiting the publication of a specific document or subject.
Sometimes, a government or other party
becomes aware of a forthcoming publication on a particular subject
and seeks to prevent it: to halt ongoing publication and prevent its resumption.
These injunctions are considered prior restraint
because potential future publications are stopped in advance.
...“Freedom of the Press” is defined as the right to be free from prior restraints.
Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases
before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press
Prior restraint, on the other hand,
takes an idea or material completely out of the marketplace.
Thus it is often considered to be the most extreme form of censorship.
A prior restraint, by contrast and by definition,
has an immediate and irreversible sanction.
If it can be said that a threat of criminal or civil sanctions
after publication 'chills' speech, prior restraint 'freezes' it at least for the time.
Wiki, H/T Roch