>>>
T. IN A STATE WHICH ALLOWS EVEN DEATH ROW INMATES UNSUPERVISED VISITS WITH
CHILDREN, THE ORDER MONITORING ALL OF MY SPEECH WITH MY CHILDREN IS A GROSS
VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.
 The conception of liberty under due process clause of the Fourteenth
amendment embraces the right of free speech.
Stromberg v. California, 283 US 359, 51 S Ct 532, 73 ALR 1484, 75 L.Ed 1117
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The duty of protecting all citizens in the enjoyment of equality of rights
was originally assumed by the states and still remains with them.
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, 23 L.Ed 588
---------------------------------------------------
 The First Amendment does not permit the government to restrict the speech
of some elements of society in order to enhance the relative voice of 
others.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 US 1, 96 S Ct, 46 L.Ed 2d 659
---------------------------------------------------
 General rules that apply evenhandedly to all persons within the 
jurisdiction comply with the fundamental principle of the equal protection
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that the state must govern impartially.
New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer,440 US 568, 99 S Ct 1355,
-------------------------------------------------------------------
59 L.Ed 2d 587
--------------
U. MAIL PROTECTED FROM PRIOR RESTRAINT
 
 The use of mails is part of free speech.
Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 US 301 85 S Ct 1493, 14 L.Ed 2d 389
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Right to mail letters is a right under this amendment and any prior
restraint on that right, which bears a heavy presumption of invalidity,
must be carefully scrutinized.
Anderson v. Dean, D.C. Ga. 1973, 354 F. Supp. 639
-------------------------------------------------
 The use of the mails is an important and necessary element of the right to
free speech under this amendment.
Associated Students of University of California at Riverside v. Attorney
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generaly of U.S., D.C. Cal. 1973, 368 F. Supp. 11
-------------------------------------------------
 This clause is broad enough to comprehend the right to correspond with 
others.
Palmigiano v. Travisono, D.C.R.I. 1970, 317 F. Supp. 776
--------------------------------------------------------
 The government has no right to substitute its judgement for the judgement 
of the individual in deciding what materials he shall receive through the
mails; such censorship cannot be exercised for the individual as purported
agent, as parens patriae, or otherwise.
U.S. v. Treatman, D.c.cal, 1976, 408 F. Supp. 944
-------------------------------------------------
V. SPECTRUM OF PROTECTED SPEECH IS WIDE.
 The right of freedom of speech and press includes not only right to utter
or to print, but right to distribute, right to receive, right to read and 
freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought, and freedom to teach.
Griswold v. State of Conn., Conn. 1965, 85 S Ct 1678, 381 U.S. 479, 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
14 L.Ed 2d 510
--------------
 All ideas having even the slightest social importance - unorthodox ideas,
controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of 
opinion - have the full protection of the constitutional guarantees of free
speech and press, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited
area of more important interests.
Roth v. United States, 354 US 476, 77 S Ct 1304
-----------------------------------------------
 The First Amendment does not protect speech and assembly only to the 
extent it can be characterized as political; great secular causes, with 
smaller ones, are guarded.
Connick v. Meyers, 461 US 138, 103 S Ct 1684, 75 L.Ed 2d 708
------------------------------------------------------------
 Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea; 
however pernicious an opinion may seem, its correction depends not on the 
conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas.
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc, 418 US 323, 94 S Ct 2997, 41 L.Ed 2d 789
--------------------------------------------------------------------
 Under freedom of speech and of the press, protection is afforded even to 
opinions that are loathed and believed to be fraught with death.
Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 US 265, 91 S Ct 621, 28 L.Ed 2d 35
------------------------------------------------------------------
 So long as the means are peaceful, the communication need not meet 
standards of acceptability in order to be protected by the constitutional
guaranty of freedom of expression.
Cohen v. California, 403 US 15, 91 S Ct 1780, 29 L.Ed 2d 284
------------------------------------------------------------
			  >>>
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
--- Renegade v10-05 Exp
---------------