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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
