>>>
G. PRESUMED UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
 Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to Supreme Court 
bearing heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.
Heller v. New York, N.Y. 1973, 93 S Ct 2789, 413 US 483, 37 L.Ed 2d 745,
------------------------------------------------------------------------
on remand 307 N.E. 2d 805, 33 N.Y. 2d 314, 352 N.Y.S.2d 601; See also 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital Cities Media, Inc. v. Toole, 103 S. Ct. 3524; New York Times Co.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
v. U.S., 91 S Ct 2140;  Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe,
------------------------------------------------------------------
91 S Ct 1575;  Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 83 S Ct 631
----------------------------------------------------------
 The guarantees of freedom of expression are not an absolute prohibition
under all circumstances, but the barriers to prior restraint remain high
and the presumption against its use continues intact.
Norton v. Matthews, 427 US 524, 96 S Ct 2771, 49 L.Ed 2d 672
------------------------------------------------------------
H. STATE CARRIES BURDEN OF PROOF.
 For a system of prior restraint by the government controlling speech and
press to be valid, burden of proving that the material is unprotected must
rest on the censor, the procedures of censorship must not lend an air of 
finality to the action of the censor, and statutory scheme must provide a 
prompt, final judicial decision.
United Artists Corp. v. Wright, D.C. Ala. 1974, 368 F. Supp. 1034
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Censorship is a form of infringement upon freedom of expression to be
especially condemned; while the constitutional protection even against a
previous restraint is not absolutely unlimited, limitation will be 
recognized only in exceptional cases; the state has a heavy burden to 
demonstrate that such a restraint presents an exceptional case.
Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 US 495, 72 S Ct 777, 96 L.Ed 1098
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I. CENSORSHIP SYSTEM IS PRIOR RESTRAINT ABSENT JUDICIAL DETERMINATION 
THAT SPEECH IS UNPROTECTED
 When a state directly impinges upon interests in free speech or free 
press, an opportunity for a fair adversary hearing must precede the action, 
whether or not the speech or press interest is clearly protected under 
substantive First Amendment standards.
Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 US 564, 92 S Ct 2701, 33 L Ed. 2d 548
-------------------------------------------------------------------
 System of prior restraints avoids constitutional infirmity only if it 
takes place under procedural safeguards designed to obviate dangers of 
censorship system.
Southeastern Promotions, Ltd v. Conrad, Tenn, 1975, 95 S Ct 1239, 420 US
------------------------------------------------------------------------
546, 43 L Ed 2d 448
-------------------
 In order to avoid constitutional infirmity, a scheme of administrative 
censorship (1) must place the burdens of initiating judicial review and of
proving that the material is unprotected expression on the censor, rather 
than requiring the distributor of the material to assume the burden of 
proving that the material is protected expression; (2) must require prompt
judicial review - a final judicial determination on the merits within a
specified, brief period - to prevent the administrative decision of the 
censor from achieving an effect of finality; and (3) must limit to 
preservation of the status quo for the shortest, fixed period compatible
with sound judicial resolution, any restraint, imposed in advance of the
final judicial determination.
Blount v. Rizzi, 400 US 410, 91 S Ct 423, 27 L Ed 2d 498
--------------------------------------------------------
J. PENALTY AFTER SPEECH CRIME ORDINARILY ADEQUATE.
 Ordinarily, constitutionally permissible interests of the state are 
adequately served by criminal penalties imposed after freedom to speak has
been so grossly abused that its immunity is breached.
Carroll v. President and Com'rs of Princess Anne, Md 1968, 89 S Ct 347,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
393 US 175, 21 L Ed 325
-----------------------
K. ORDER AND PRESENT TENSE CLAUSE OF SUPERVISION CONTRACT ARE CONTENT 
CONTROL.
 Above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to 
restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter,
or its content; the people are guaranteed the right to express any thought,
free from government censorship.
Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 US 92, 92 S Ct 2286, 33 L Ed 2d 212
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The special vice of a prior restraint on expression is that communication 
will be suppressed, either directly or by inducing excessive caution in the 
speaker, before an adequate determination that is unprotected by the First
Amendment.
Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Com. on Human Relations, 413 US 376,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
93 S Ct 2553, 37 L Ed 2d 669
----------------------------
		    >>>
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
--- Renegade v10-05 Exp
---------------