There is no superior person by constitutional standards. An applicant who is white is entitled to no advantage by reason of that fact, nor is he subject to any disability, no matter what his race or color. Whatever his race, an applicant has a constitutional right to have his application considered on its individual merits.

The use of violence as an instrument of persuasion is therefore inviting and seems to the discontented to be the only effective protest.

The First Amendment...does not say that in every respect there shall be a separation of Church and State....Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other - hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly....The state may not establish a 'religion of secularism' in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.

Freedom of movement is the very essence of our free society -- once the right to travel is curtailed, all other rights suffer.

Why cannot we work at cooperative schemes and search for the common ground binding all mankind together?

My faith is that the only soul a man must save is his own.

Thus if the First Amendment means anything in this field, it must allow protests even against the moral code that the standard of the day sets for the community. In other words, literature should not be suppressed merely because it offends the moral code of the censor.