From the article
Thomas's conclusion (quoting an earlier
opinion of his own): "I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment
that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers,
damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning
letters as the price for engaging in "core political speech, the
'primary object of First Amendment protection.' "
That last argument is one that has drawn wide support on the court in other contexts. In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission
(1995), a 7-2 majority struck down an Ohio law prohibiting the
distribution of anonymous campaign literature. In an opinion joined by
five of his colleagues (Thomas separately concurred), Justice John Paul
Stevens wrote that "the decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated
by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social
ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as
possible." The applicability of that observation to Eich's predicament
is obvious.
In NAACP v. Alabama
(1958), the Warren court unanimously quashed a state subpoena for the
NAACP's membership list. "This Court has recognized the vital
relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one's
associations," Justice John Harlan noted. "Inviolability of privacy in
group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to
preservation of freedom of association, particularly where a group
espouses dissident beliefs."
Source: James Taranto, "Justice Thomas Was Right," The Wall Street Journal, April 4, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment