It seems to me that the standard 'a thing is a press and gets 1st protection if it's publicly accessible' isn't sufficient and may not be constitutional itself. The first says the act and the hardware have special priviliges. These priviliges aren't contengent upon public access or even use. Simple possession of a press is protected. Now it is clear that a computer is a 'digital press', so shouldn't ALL computers be protected under the 1st? When we bring the 'public' aspect into it all that happens is we move it into speech or thought prior to distribution. The 1st says you have a right to any thought you may desire, and you have a right to share that thought with others. No if's, no and's, no but's. If I create a politicaly confrontational poster but at the last minute I chicken out and put the posters under the table. A cop comes in and finds them and I am prosecuted, whereas if I had gone ahead and put them up I would have been protected? I don't think so. The 1st says '...any...' and that includes drawing distinctions. ____________________________________________________________________ Beware gentle knight, there is no greater monster than reason. Miguel de Cervantes The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------