Re: freedomforum.org: Federal judge quashes subpoena for Kansas bookstore's sales records
Jim, please do not email me privately unless you want to say something to me privately. It appears as though you sent the below message to the list and then to me in a different message; there is no need for this, and it violates netiquette. In any case, I'm inclined to believe that the First Amendment should not grant special rights to people who call themselves bookstores and journalists. Rather, we should all enjoy those rights. Being an Official Approved Government-Certified Journalist -- and I am one -- writing an article should not mean I have special privileges that only I enjoy and someone from an unapproved newspaper, or a cypherpunk subscriber writing about the same topic, does not. -Declan At 05:29 PM 2/13/01 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
I'd want to read the documents in this case. But quick thoughts: The scope of civil discovery has broadened too much in the U.S. That said, I'm not sure why bookstores should be treated differently than other businesses.
Congress shall make no law respecting freedom of speech or press.
I'll give you a mental problem to ponder, if you can infringe my speech or press by intimidating or denying access to others then there is no free speech or press and the right has been infringed.
"He's guilty, he read "Hunt for Red October"!"
It doesn't surprise me that most of the crypto-anarchist cranks (you people should really look up the definition of that word before you use it) on this list wouldn't get it.
On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
In any case, I'm inclined to believe that the First Amendment should not grant special rights to people who call themselves bookstores and journalists. Rather, we should all enjoy those rights. Being an Official Approved Government-Certified Journalist -- and I am one -- writing an article should not mean I have special privileges that only I enjoy and someone from an unapproved newspaper, or a cypherpunk subscriber writing about the same topic, does not.
As usual you get it bass-ackwards...there must be a 'journalist' gene that causes these sorts of cerebral mis-wires. 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. It's that pesky '...no law..' clause that almost (whew!) everyone keeps wishing wasn't there. Trying to voilate a persons civil liberties via a 3rd party doesn't make it any less a violation and it doesn't redirect any culpability to the initiating party simply because they are so removed. There is no concomitent 'Congress shall make no law restricting the manufacture, sale, possession, or use of hobby fish' so whichever law officer it was that compared it to a fish store also failed to catch the distinction. Journalist are scum (like lawyers) they sell their integrity, they deserve no protection and actually get none. If you look at the history and beliefs of the founding fathers they did NOT equate freedom of 'press' with 'newspaper' or 'reporter'. I've forwarded Jeffersons comment on the distiction and value of 'press' versus 'newspaper' already, take Tim's advise and do a little digging in the archives. The reality is the only protection the reporter gets is as a recognized agent of the press owner and the right of the people to know what is going on around them (that thing about you have rights until they impact another). ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
The only people scuzzier than scum reporters, lawyers, politicians, bureaucrats, cops, pederasts, communazis, feminazis, other-color-skinneds, you know, the most hated of your stupid clan, are those who hate them due to cross-wired brains, of which I am a proud holder one of. Why without those others to loath I'd have only myself with this diamondback up my ass put there by momma, a fun lover, to tell me from her other litters she didn't know whose was whose, and "didn't give a flying" she'd puke lolling a dry tit bit by those you'd never call bro and sis and paw and our sacred kind.
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
On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
But why should this be limited to the book stores? The same should go for laudries etc.
Where is: Congress shall make no law respecting the laundering of a persons personals. Ain't there, you're blowing smoke.
In this sense we *are* talking about privileges to those dealing with 1st Amendment protected material, like the press and book stores.
No, in no sense are we talking about the store other than as a mechanism for the execution by the book buyer (ain't that part of 'press'?) of their protected activities. By infringing the store you infringe the protected activities. Hence they wouldn't be protected, therefore the initial action against the store can't be allowed. Putting a 'tax' on owning a press would be identical. Are you saying that taxing the simple ownership of a press should be allowed? That it would not infringe the 1st?
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.
There is NO issue of 'privacy' per se in this. The issue is that speech and press (which includes reading same) are protected activities under the 1st. Publishing a book is not a 'private' activity (at least not in the sense you use the word - remember 'private' has TWO (2) definitions, just like juicy-fruit. Is your claim the 1st is based on a 'privacy' argument? I'd like to hear it. As to 'privacy' refer to to the 4th, 5th, 9th, & 10th to understand why the 'privacy' argument as tendered by Declan and others is so full of holes it'd make good Swiss cheese. ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 01:55:45PM +0200, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
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.
That's a nice way to word it, and sums my thoughts up nicely. -Declan
On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 06:19:50PM -0600, 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
Same principle. Why should book buyers deserve more privacy than condom buyers? Your thinking is muddled. I've already stipulated that civil/criminal discovery is far too broad in the U.S.
Journalist are scum (like lawyers) they sell their integrity, they deserve no protection and actually get none. If you look at the history and
Hahahahahahahaha. -Declan
participants (4)
-
Declan McCullagh -
Jim Choate -
John Young -
Sampo Syreeni