Mr. Hubbard’s principles, is exactly what the First
Amendment is there for. It is to insure that, at least in
the public areas of life, there is a free marketplace of
ideas.

Scientology is certainly welcome to keep its
acolytes sheltered from the news and sheltered from the
words of non-Scientologists on its own property, inside its
own building, behind its blacked-out windows down on
Cleveland Street, but it has no right to insist that other

people forego the exercise of fundamental rights in order

to assist them in the preservation of that cosseted

existence for their adherents. That is obscene.
I want to turn first to the simplest elements

of the law. I would assume that in the Court’s career, the
Court has -- I don’t think privileged is the word -- the
Court has had the opportunity to sit in family law cases,
which are the home-playing field of modifications in the
sphere of chancery proceedings.

And everybody talks about -- we all talk about,

in family law, the Zetiker (phonetic) standard, Zetiker,

Zetiker, Zetiker, like Zetiker, with something new.

All Zetiker did was declare clearly that an
ancient equitable principle regarding modification of
orders entered for decrees, entered in chancery, applied to
modifications of child custody.