included in Plaintiffs L.Civ.R. 56.1 Statement as undisputed. The Court finds that the current motion is not procedurally defective and will proceed with an analysis of the legal issues. III. First Amendment Analysis A. Parsing the Constitutional Claims This Court notes at the outset that Plaintiffs objections to the Ordinance are general in nature. Although Plaintiff highlights sections of the Ordinance that it believes violate First Amendment principles, Plaintiff does not present, nor does Defendant defend, its arguments in terms of individual provisions of the Ordinance. This Circuit has rejected this global approach and requires courts instead to examine provisions of the regulation individually. See Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc. v. Berger, 894 F.2d 61, 66 (3d Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, wherever possible, the Court will
recognizing first amendment retaliation right holding that where the first amendment does not protect a certain activity there can be no first amendment right of association to engage in that activity recognizing first amendment and fourteenth amendment interests in inmate correspondence holding that a first amendment challenge that conflates four distinct regulatory elements into an amorphous whole  needlessly obscures the first amendment issues and the court would instead subject each component  to independent constitutional scrutiny holding first amendment guarantees access to criminal trials and limitations on access are subject to strict scrutiny