My research into Equality and Equal Protection led me to a California Law Review by Chester James Antieau . The Law Review taught me that their is an Equality in Freedom of Expression which is covered by the First Amendment. As it relates to descendants of former Slaves or former Slaves the Thirteenth Amendment was necessary to ensure that they would enjoy those rights in the First Amendment which fall under the long list of Civil and Political Rights. It has been ruled by the Supreme Court that the Thirteenth Amendment guarantees Civil and Political Rights, thus Freedom of Expression would constitute a Civil and Political Right, that aspect is not discussed herein, this blog concentrates more on what is taught in the California Law review as it relates to Equality i Freedom of Expression.
As to the first Amendment Mr. Antieau provides that:
Equality in freedom of expression has been frequently demanded by the Court through utilization of the First Amendment, made binding upon the states through the vehicle of the due process clause of the Fourteenth. Unorthodox religious groups, unpopular political parties, opposition newspapers, aliens, unions and employers have all benefited in their claims to equality of freedom of communication through the First Amendment.
For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses, representative of the less orthodox religious bodies, have been held entitled to equal use of public streets and parks notwithstanding the disturbing nature of their propagandizing,35 and their children have been given their equal right to public education in spite of a reluctance to participate in flag salutes.3 6
Members of unpopular political parties have been held entitled to a fair measure of equality in the use of public grounds and even schools, 38 as well as in private assembly,39 but they have so far seldom achieved full equality in the use of the ballot,”‘ or in the dissemination of their literature and ideas.41
In Grosjean v. American Press Co., although equal protection was also argued in opposition to a discriminatory tax imposed upon anti-administration newspapers, the United States Supreme Court preferred to use the First Amendment to annul the inequality, saying “we deem it unnecessary to consider the further ground assigned that it also constitutes a denial of equal protection of the laws.”Y4 Unions and union organizers have been held entitled to equal opportunities to speak,4 to use public grounds for assemblage,’ to publicize by picketing their grievances against employers,’ and to engage in political activity.”‘
Since unions are entitled to freedom of expression in the industrial situation, notions of equality suggest that a similar right in employers be recognized, and courts have so held under the First Amendment, 7 one stating: “Unless the right of free speech is enjoyed by employers as well as employees, the guaranty of the First Amendment is futile, for it is fundamental that the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution belong equally to every person.”‘
Theoretically, naturalized citizens are entitled to equal freedom of expression with their native-born brethren, and the Supreme Court has even said: “It is plain that citizenship obtained through naturalization carries with it the privilege of full participation in the affairs of our society, including the right to speak freely, to criticize officials and administrators, and to promote changes in our laws including the very Charter of our Government.”4 9
Similarly, the Court has indicated that equality of freedom of expression is the right of aliens who are lawfully with us.5 However, attainment is far short of aspiration, and the long record of deportations and even denaturalizations for daring to express unpopular or unorthodox ideas or joining the less conservative political parties must make any naturalized citizen or alien seeking citizenship wonder whether theirs are second-class rights.”‘
In First Amendment decisions some unjust and unfortunate inequalities have been condoned. The second-class freedom of expression of the naturalized citizen is shared by hundreds of thousands of public employees.5 2 When a racial minority sought equality of employment opportunities from a private employer by picketing, punishment was allowed despite this Amendment.53
When producers of films sought equal freedom of expression with publishers of newspapers and magazines the Amendment was, until this year, held entirely inapplicable as to them.54 So, too, although the distinction is unsound, “commercial” distributors of literature receive far less protection under the Amendment than their non-commercial counterparts.0 Lastly, the unorthodox religious, especially those who are opposed to war, have been denied equality in many opportunities, such as admission to the bar,- largely through the unfortunate nonsense of “privilege” ratiocination.
Although the record of condoned inequalities in freedom of expression under the First Amendment is not good, there is no reason to believe that equal protection arguments would have been more availing. Furthermore, the presumption of constitutionality attaching to state legislation under equal protection attack is probably and properly not applicable when the First Amendment freedoms are abridged.
There is good reason, then, to continue attacks upon, and judicial examination of, denials of equality in expression and belief by use of the-First Amendment rather than the equal protection clause. Finally it should also be noted that, under the companion First Amendment establishment of religion clause and state equivalents, children attending religious schools will probably be denied certain equalities.”‘
It is of even greater interest to note the equal protection argument running through the commentaries critical of the McCollum decision’M under this clause. If these writers are correct, the establishment of religion clause is intended only to prevent preference by organized government of one faith over others.59