Do this Court's First Amendment 'prior restraint' holdings that command 'strict procedural safeguards' designed to obviate the dangers of a freewheeling censorship system, permit Wisconsin to authorize the seizure — from a home — of any, unspecified, First Amendment-protected printed and filmed materials officers can find; permit a court to declare the mere 'act of possessing' them as 'other acts' evidence to admit their message-content as inculpatory criminal evidence to 'prove' the defendant is homosexual, expressly deny a Freedman adversary hearing and 'prompt judicial review;' and threaten sanctions for seeking Freedman compliance any First Amendment merits review in its courts?

QUESTION PRESENTED Do this Court’s First Amendment “prior restraint” holdings that command “strict ; procedural safeguards” designed to obviate the dangers of a freewheeling censorship system, see Freedman y. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 58 (1965) and Southeastern Promotions Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546 (1975), permit Wisconsin to authorize the seizure — from a home — of any, unspecified, First Amendment-protected printed and filmed materials officers can find; permit a court to declare the mere “act of possessing” them as “other acts” evidence to admit their message-content as inculpatory criminal evidence to “prove” the defendant is homosexual, expressly deny a Freedman adversary hearing and “prompt judicial review;” and threaten sanctions for seeking Freedman compliance any First Amendment merits review in its courts? — . _<