Opinion ID: 2543833
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Right to Purchase and Read Books Without Fear of Government Disclosure or Reprisal

Text: The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects more than simply the right to speak freely. [10] It is well established that it safeguards a wide spectrum of activities, including the right to distribute and sell expressive materials, the right to associate with others, and, most importantly to this case, the right to receive information and ideas. [11] These various rights, though not explicitly articulated in either the Federal or Colorado Constitution, are necessary to the successful and uninhibited exercise of the specifically enumerated right to freedom of speech. [12] Without the right to receive information and ideas, the protection of speech under the United States and Colorado Constitutions would be meaningless. It makes no difference that one can voice whatever view one wishes to express if others are not free to listen to these thoughts. The converse also holds true. Everyone must be permitted to discover and consider the full range of expression and ideas available in our marketplace of ideas. [13] As Justice Brandeis so eloquently stated, [Our founders] believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375, 47 S.Ct. 641, 71 L.Ed. 1095 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring). [14] The Supreme Court has recently reiterated the crucial role that the free exchange of ideas plays in our society, stating, The citizen is entitled to seek out or reject certain ideas or influences without Government interference or control. United States v. Playboy Entm't Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 817, 120 S.Ct. 1878, 146 L.Ed.2d 865 (2000). Bookstores are places where a citizen can explore ideas, receive information, and discover myriad perspectives on every topic imaginable. When a person buys a book at a bookstore, he engages in activity protected by the First Amendment because he is exercising his right to read and receive ideas and information. Any governmental action that interferes with the willingness of customers to purchase books, or booksellers to sell books, thus implicates First Amendment concerns. [15] Anonymity is often essential to the successful and uninhibited exercise of First Amendment rights, precisely because of the chilling effects that can result from disclosure of identity. The Supreme Court has recognized this principle numerous times in various contexts. [16] For instance, in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, the Court stated, Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation  and their ideas from suppression  at the hand of an intolerant society. 514 U.S. 334, 357, 115 S.Ct. 1511, 131 L.Ed.2d 426 (1995) (citation omitted). In another case, Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301, 307, 85 S.Ct. 1493, 14 L.Ed.2d 398 (1965), the Court struck down a federal statute that required citizens who wished to receive communist political propaganda to affirmatively so notify the post office. The Court's holding rested on concerns that First Amendment speech rights would be chilled if people were required to reveal their identities before being able to receive these expressive materials. Id. The need to protect anonymity in the context of the First Amendment has particular applicability to book-buying activity. As was explained in United States v. Rumely, governmental inquiry and intrusion into the reading choices of bookstore customers will almost certainly chill their constitutionally protected rights: Once the government can demand of a publisher the names of the purchasers of his publications, the free press as we know it disappears. Then the spectre of a government agent will look over the shoulder of everyone who reads.... Fear of criticism goes with every person into the bookstall. The subtle, imponderable pressures of the orthodox lay hold. Some will fear to read what is unpopular, what the powers-that-be dislike.... [F]ear will take the place of freedom in the libraries, book stores, and homes of the land. Through the harassment of hearings, investigations, reports, and subpoenas government will hold a club over speech and over the press. 345 U.S. 41, 57-58, 73 S.Ct. 543, 97 L.Ed. 770 (1953) (Douglas, J., concurring). The right to engage in expressive activities anonymously, without government intrusion or observation, is critical to the protection of the First Amendment rights of book buyers and sellers, precisely because of the chilling effects of such disclosures. Search warrants directed to bookstores, demanding information about the reading history of customers, intrude upon the First Amendment rights of customers and bookstores because compelled disclosure of book-buying records threatens to destroy the anonymity upon which many customers depend. In sum, the First Amendment embraces the individual's right to purchase and read whatever books she wishes to, without fear that the government will take steps to discover which books she buys, reads, or intends to read. A governmental search warrant directed to a bookstore that authorizes seizure of records that reflect a customer's purchases necessarily intrudes into areas protected by this right. [17]