An analysis of the Supreme Court's First Amendment decisions under Chief Justice Warren Burger does not indicate any pattern of repudiation of doctrinal advances made by earlier courts. Like its predecessors, the Burger Court has dealt most frequently with First Amendment cases requiring definition and interpretation of government abridgement. In a few such cases, most notably those involving sexually explicit expression, the Court has contracted the conceptual definition of abridgement. In most cases, though, the Burger Court has either left intact previous courts' conceptual definitions of abridgement or expanded the concept to enhance protection for freedom of expression. In a few cases, the Burger Court has been called upon to address the parameters of freedom of speech and press. The Court, following a pattern begun by the Warren Court, consistently has refused to expand the definition of freedom of expression by reading broad protection for the information gathering and editorial processes into the First Amendment. This would suggest that constitutional protection for the newsgathering and editing processes is unlikely to result from Supreme Court redefinition of the parameters of freedom of the press. Consequently the media need to search for creative ways of gaining such protection by focusing on the abridgement aspects of government actions. (Author/HOD)