Court Opinion

ID: 9421824
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:00:03.192605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:32.646875
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Brennan,
dissenting.
I would reverse this conviction. It is sufficient that I state my complete agreement with my Brother Black that no purpose for the investigation of Barenblatt is revealed by the record except exposure purely for the sake of exposure. This is not a purpose to which Barenblatt’s rights under the I'irst Amendment can validly be subordinated. An investigation in which the processes of lawmaking and law-evaluating are submerged entirely in exposure of individual behavior — in adjudication, of a sort, through the exposure process — is outside the constitutional pale of congressional inquiry. Watkins v. United States, 354 U. S. 178, 187, 200; see also Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U. S. 234; NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449; Uphaus v. Wyman, ante, p. 82 (dissenting opinion).