14 Feb
2001
14 Feb
'01
7:56 a.m.
On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
It isn't the store that's being protected. It's the purchaser of the book, the reader to wit. To force a person to reveal their reading habits violates the 1st because it infringes both speech and press.
But why should this be limited to the book stores? The same should go for laudries etc. In this sense we *are* talking about privileges to those dealing with 1st Amendment protected material, like the press and book stores. Declan's problem obviously is that while free speech has constitutional protection in itself, here *privacy* is protected only via extension of the 1st Amendment protection. This isn't enough. Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi>, aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university