Slashdot Mirror
Tattered Cover v. Thornton Reversed
TheMatt writes "In a victory for all those who like the First Amendment, the Colorado Supreme Court today reversed
and remanded 'Tattered Cover v. Thornton'.
The case concerned the Thornton police attempting to use a search warrant to gain access to the book-buying records of a suspected criminal. The Tattered Cover asserted First Amendment rights and refused to comply with the warrant.
It is believed this will be heard by the US Supreme Court eventually." I can only imagine what the Tattered cover's legal bill must be like.
is the death shriek of an innocent server running Apache on a PII 450 somewhere in central Colorado... ;)
May God have mercy on Tattered Cover's admin.
"The prosecution can bite my shiny, metal ass. Case dismissed."
It's bad enough that the RIAA wants to watch who's listening to what and where and how. It's bad enough that the MPAA wants to make sure you don't watch DVDs in the wrong country on the wrong brand of TV. It's horrible that they've bought enough senators to have their way with us, but it's fucking untenable that what we read can be subpeoaned and used against us.
Reading, music and movies are all unsafe at any speed. Let me know if you find a hobby I can enjoy without feeling someone's eyes on my back.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
i like that name.
makes me want to start a computer company called Dented Boxen
In high profile cases that challenge the courts' previous decisions the work is usually done pro bono(free).
The little guy has to win some of the time! Anybody know if there's a fund set up for folks to donate money towards legal expenses?
;-)
I mean, used bookstores are just *rolling* in dough.
The Tattered Cover may not be in the right. The first amendment protects speech, religion, and the right to openly demonstrate those. It does not protect the right to privacy. I can certainly understand the bookstores reluctance to give out its customer's purchasing records, but if the government has a warrant there might not be much that can be done. I would assume this falls under the fourth amendment about search and seizure.
I don't know the details of this case; can anyone point me to a link that gives some background? Because I have to admit, given what I've seen on their site, the First Amendment argument seems pretty weak...just like (almost) everyone else here, IANAL, but saying that anonymity is required for true freedom of speech seems a tenuous link at best. As long as you're protected from being censored or censured for your opinions, I fail to see how anonymity is a legitimate requirement for free speech. But, again, IANAL, and there could be loads of legal precedent for this of which I am unaware. Still, I would have thought this sort of thing would fall more under the Fourth Amendment...
Anyhow, the upshot is, I'd appreciate someone pointing me to the background for this story so I can remove the "un"...
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
As anyone in Denver and it's surrounding area's can tell you Tattered Cover is *the* place to go for great books and wonderful service so it's nice to see them not only survive the onslaught of cookie-cutter book "warehouses" but also unfounded legal assaults.
"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," wrote Justice Bender.
Mr. Bender, would you please run for Congress?
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
For those of you not from Colorado. The Tattered Cover is a bookstore chain out here in Colorado that specializes in all sorts of books over all sorts of subjects. The two stores that I am aware of (there may be more) are at least three, maybe for fours. There are not a used book store and the can be said to be larger than any Barnes and Nobles that I know of.
From a computer books perspective they are neither the best nor the worst but certainly they do carry them.
Beware the wood elf!!!
It's time to close the "book store loophole," where criminals can purchase "how to" books that contain instructional information on committing illegal acts without any type of background check.
Do it for the children.
Every time I excercise my second amendment rights by purchasing a firearm, I am required to fill out a government form with all sorts of personal information. The seller is then required to get permission from the FBI and Colorado Bureau of Investigation to complete the transaction.
The government has illegally been keeping these records. After being conditioned that this is "reasonable," -- often by first amendment extremists -- why should I give a flying rat's ass if it happens to other people?
To save a little time... Quote below...
Plaintiff-Appellant:
TATTERED COVER, INC., d/b/a THE TATTERED COVER BOOKSTORE,
v.
Defendants-Appellees:
THE CITY OF THORNTON; and THORNTON POLICE OFFICER RANDY GOIN, in his official capacity.
JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED
EN BANC
JUSTICE BENDER delivered the Opinion of the Court.
JUSTICE COATS does not participate
My computer store always asks for my name and address, even when I buy with cash. I usually tell them "No thanks" but one woman kept at it, so I gave her the address for Wrigley Field, heh heh.
Radio Shack was the original offender in this 'collecting your address to serve you better' BS, but it seems to be picking up steam as 'the thing to do'.
So, pay cash, and remember "3600 N. Clark Street, Chicago Illinois, 60657".
-----
My father is a blogger.
3 floors and basement in the Cherry Creek location. 3 floors in downtown ("Lo Do") location.
Parenthetically - the Tattered Cover used to use a QNX-based system to do all their inventory and point-of-sale stuff. I was in the Tattered Cover last week but I can't recall what they used.
This is wonderful to see. Tattered Cover is easily the coolest bookstore I have ever had the pleasure to buy books at. The main store (Cherry Creek) is giagantic, sporting (among other things) very extinsive abounts of Sci-Fi, History, Maps (some historical), and computer books. At 4 stories, I don't know of another anywhere near it's size. The Downtown one is also very cool, right in one of the hottest parts of Denver (LoDo). Regularly, they have really high profile authors in, talking about their books or doing readings.
All this from what was a tiny corner bookstore maybe 15 years ago.
Between their just utter badassness, and this - I don't see myself buying books anywhere else for a long long time. oh, and note: they have an affiliate program - so if you value companie slike this, dump amazon, and add them.
- The unexamined life is not worth leading -
First off, it's not a used bookstore...at least not the merchandise I have seen there (I have been to the LoDo store, but not Cherry Creek).
:)
Their legal fund (according to one of their clerks, anyway) is with:
American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression
139 Fulton St #302
NY, NY 10038
Or you can call them at 303-322-7727 or 303-436-1070. I'm not listing their toll-free number here cause it costs them money for people to call them on it
You CAN order books directly from them online at www.tatteredcover.com. They have been very helpful in finding books for me that B&N, Boreders, and Amazon have said were out of print.
Denver Isuzu Suzuki
I doubt the U.S. Supreme Court will take it.
The Colorado Supreme Court restricted the ability of Colorado police to execute a search warrant.
First, there is a doctrine that says if there is an independent state ground for the ruling, then there is not a basis for Supreme Court review. This doctrine has less applicability when a Constitutional right is being allegedly violated. However, nobody says that the Colorado police have a Constitutional right to the search -- if anything the ruling tends to support Constitutional rights.
Second, Federalism doctrine, which the current U.S. Supreme Court favors, would tend to lead to the conclusion that the U.S. Supreme Court should let the Colorado Supreme Court rein in the Colorado police if it wants to.
There will be other cases in the future, and the Supreme Court may well hear one. Just not this one.
The Colorado constitution "protect an individual's fundamental right to purchase books anonymously, free from governmental interference."
So it isn't just a first amendment issue.
The middle mind speaks!
(IANAL but...) freedom of speech has traditionally been interpreted as protecting a dialog of ideas (as opposed to a monologue). In other words, not only are your rights to express an idea protected, but also your right to receive ideas lawfully expressed by others. (Otherwise, the government could simply say: "Freedom of speech? Sure, talk all you want. Just step into this soundproofed room first.") Freedom of expression without reasonable freedom of channels of expression is more or less useless.
In this case, it seems the court found that, among other things, the warrant placed an undue burden on the bookstore in its role as a channel of constitutionally protected speech.http://www.cobar.org/CFwebFiles/Content/dspOpinion . fm?OpinionID=560
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
An excerpt from the opinion summary:
. . . the law enforcement need for the book purchase record in this case was not sufficiently compelling to outweigh the harm that would likely follow from execution of the search warrant, in part because law enforcement officials sought the purchase record for reasons related to the contents of the books that the suspect may have purchased. (emphasis added)
In other words, the police weren't interested in any criminal acts related to the purchase of these books, but rather if there was any content in the books which the prosecution could use to strengthen their case against the defendant.
To draw an Internet analogy, this would be akin to the cops forcing an ISP to turn over their Web proxy logs, in order to determine if a suspected terrorist visited a site on bomb-making, instead of finding hard-copy instructions in the terrorist's apartment (which certainly could be used as circumstantial evidence).
This decision makes a lot of sense. It would be one thing if the suspect had bought a dictionary, then used it to brain a little old lady during a mugging--then the police would have the right to obtain purchase records in order to prove the perp bought the murder weapon. But simply to say that "he bought The Anarchist's Cookbook, therefore he must be guilty"--that is a dangerous assumption, and clearly represents an attack on our rights to free expression.
That's Tattered Cover's big selling point with me (besides 4 floors of selection and a coffee bar). Big leather chairs everywhere to test-read your selections, floor-to ceiling wooden bookcases w/ step ladders all over, bookcases all the way up the stairwell... and a distinct shortage of clerks wandering the store asking you if they can help you every five minutes. Peace and quiet while shopping is a rare thing these days. If I can't find something, there's help desks readily available for me to ask.
Man, I can lose hours in there.
Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, will be quoted out of context on
One question:
Can you imagine Barnes & Noble, Borders, or Amazon.com doing what the Tattered Cover has done?
I'm amused that people do not notice satire when they see it... this thing should be +3 Funny, not +2 Insightful. And all those serious replies... sigh.
The fact that the writer does not even coherently stick to the same point from beginning of post to end should clue people in that it was meant as humor.
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
When I first read this, I thought: "That's very strange. Why shouldn't the police be able to get the book buying records of a legitimate criminal suspect? They can get phone company records and credit card records, right?"
Pages 9 and 10 of the ruling make it clear:
---
[Officer Goin] and DI McFarland then served the Tattered Cover with a DEA administrative subpoena. [...] Using such a subpoena was ordinarily a successful technique for DEA officers, though such a subpoena lacks any legal force or effect.
[...]
INSTEAD OF ATTEMPTING TO OBTAIN AN ENFORCEABLE SUBPOENA, Officer Goin approached prosecutors from the Adams County District Attorney's office to get a search warrant for the Tattered Cover. Several prosecutors at the Adams County DA's office refused to sign off on the warrant, voicing concerns about its scope and subject matter. [...]
Without informing the Adams County DA's office, Officer Goin sought approval for his search warrant from the Denver DA's office. As approved by a Denver DA, the warrant authorized a search of the Tattered Cover for information related to the transaction in question, and for records of any other transaction involving Suspect A during the thirty-day period before the police searched the trailer. A Denver county court judge then approved the warrant.
---
So, basically the Officer was a dope who tried to do an end-run around the law. Oops!
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Officer Goin searched the Tattered Cover's webpage and discovered that it offered both books for sale. He and DI McFarland then served the Tattered Cover with a DEA administrative subpoena. This subpoena demanded the title of the books corresponding to the order and invoice numbers of the mailer, as well as information about all other book orders ever placed by Suspect A. Using such a subpoena was ordinarily a successful technique for DEA officers, though such a subpoena lacks any legal force or effect.
So, the DEA can make up any 'subponea' that they want to, and as long as no one questions it, they can do what they damn well please? This just doesn't seem right. Lawywers? Anyone?
I disable sigs...do you?
Because I think freedom of speech and freedom of the press is supposed to extend to the listener as well; if one cannot be persecuted for saying or printing a given thing, then people who listen to/read the same thing shouldn't face any sort of persecution. Otherwise, Senator McCarthy would probably be VERY interested to know why you're reading Mao Tse Tung's Little Red Book..what's that, political science major? Sure, I'll bet you're even going to graduate COMMIE cum laude.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Whoops! I call Goodwin's Law!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Yes, that is legitimate. But asking what books the defendant has bought recently, on the grounds that if any of said books involve criminal activity, the defendant must have been planning a similar crime, is stupid. And that's the case here.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Let's get this straight - if the government gives you the right to speak on the corner soapbox but sends jackbooted thugs to beat anyone who dares to listen to you to a bloody pulp before dragging them off to jail, YOUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS WORTHLESS. The right to speech includes, as a necessary component, the right of others to listen to you in peace.
That's Civil Liberties 101, and should be familiar to anyone arguing this case.
That's why the American Library Association (ALA) has long held that patron's reading selections should be considered Constitutionally protected. Just as it is unconstitutional for the government to prevent the publication or distribution of a book, it should be considered unconstitutional for the government to post a cop in the stacks whose icy stare and hand on the butt of his gun must be endured to pick up a book, and even the threat of the cops reviewing a list of who has read a book should be done with great caution.
The Tattered Cover sells books, instead of just lending them out, but the same arguments apply. IMHO, the ONLY reason this case has gotten as far as it has is that the Thornton police are asking for records about a specific purchase with evidence left at a crime scene, not just asking for a list of all purchasers of a specific book.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Way to split an infinitive.
The court's decision is chock full of some very significant ideas and quotes from previous cases, many of which directly apply to another free speech issue - the DMCA.
For example: "Without the right to receive information and ideas, the protection of speech under the United States and Colorado Constitutions would be meaningless."
Or: "Everyone must be permitted to discover and consider the full range of expression and ideas available in our 'marketplace of ideas.'"
Footnote 14 in the text of the decision is an absolutely brilliant quotation of Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis regarding the "freedom to think as you will and speak as you think".
The decision is well worth reading. It's not in some sort of complex legalese. Far from it, it is very clearly stated.
-h-
Something most independent bookstores have in common is that they will fight tooth and nail to preserve your First Amendment rights. What Tattered just did was fight back what could easily be the first step on a slippery slope to eroding our rights. Think of what might happen next if Tattered lost. Publishers might become reluctant to publish so-called "subversive" material. Readers would have to be wary about which books they bought, knowing that the records could be subpeonaed.
Think about that the next time you buy books. The big chains, amazon, et. al do not have this tradition of protecting your information - in fact they are looking at ways to make use of it for marketing purposes. Its the independent bookstores around the country who really care about defending the First Amendment, because that reflects in the quality of literature we will see, and ultimately reflects on our individual freedom to write and speak as we choose. When was the last time you saw "Banned Books week" at amazon.com or Barnes & Noble?
Now we have a good legal precedent to back us up. Thanks, Tattered Cover!
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Note that under the so-called "Patriot Act", not only will the FBI be able to seize these kinds of records, but it will be illegal for the media to report on any such seizure. How's that for the ability to rewrite history, Soviet-style?
Details here.
The FBI was never here, go about your business.
If the state can't harass speakers, but can harass listeners, then the right to speak is pretty worthless.
That's why the right to listen (or read) in peace is considered an integral part of the freedoms of speech and press. The government can't send the cops to harass listeners, or the FD to hit them with a fire hose, or even the FBI with sound gear they used in Waco.
For a counterpoint, you should still be able to find people with living memory of fascist and communist regimes which had "freedom of speech"... but anyone foolish enough to be caught listening would be sent to the Gulag. Or the death camps.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
In the future, instead of linking to Amazon when you want to refer someone to a book, link to The Tattered Cover, like this:
The Termcap Manual, by Richard Stallman.
Support the folks that regard as important the same ideals you regard as important. Amazon is not your friend. The Tattered Cover is. They are fighting the good fight, and at no small cost to themselves. You should thank them by sending them your business and your friends' business.
Edith Keeler Must Die
Does the freedom of speech include the freedom to listen to the speech of others?
Does the chilling effect of someone cataloguing that speech which you are privy to, and using it against you, abridge that right?
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
This is "civil liberties," and this case is relatively tame. You should be able to find a decent introductory textbook on any large college campus.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Yes, this question has been addressed elsewhere. I'm sure other answers
have been more eloquent and informed. But the question, here, even when
answered elsewhere, begs to be answered here.
This actually falls, in a roundabout way, under both abridgements of the
right to speech without punishment (And how that has been weakened), and
the right of the press to print without the editorial oversight of those
who would be our moral parents.
It ought, however, to also fall under the 4th amendment right you placed
in bold. This has to do with the blurring of "papers" and "effects", as
the constitution was written before so many agencies that would not have
been considered protected regions for personal privacy started keeping a
huge amount of private information.
Honestly, there is a justification for, and a general acceptance of, the
right of parties charged with maintaining peace, order, law, and justice
to obtain certain information, in restricted circumstances, regarding an
otherwise private detail of an individual being investigated in criminal
matters. With public oversight of the process, and without a willful or
careless dissemination of that private information, this becomes a valid
and sensible tool.
The problem here, in this case, is that the agency in question failed to
reasonably limit the scope of their search. The key is "and no warrants
shall issue
is some degree of lattitude, and in many cases, they may have been right
in their blanket request for "purchase records of X from store Y", where
store Y was of a particular class of store and one of those records was,
with a reasonable degree of probability, known to contain information on
a specific purchase. It's a double bind, you see. They know the record
in question exists, but not the date, and if the case is still uncertain
and the suspect still just that (in theory, until conviction), a privacy
argument (protecting against careless dissemination) could justify their
blanket request. Local police might even be thought of as unable to, in
most cases at least, abuse this particular data, though there are cases,
especially where "Christian Values" is a buzzword for "We're going to be
a little facist state here, and if you don't like it, you can go move to
some big city, you hear?", where that is decidedly not true.
So... had they asked only for documentation of that specific purchase, a
reasonable request if not made spuriously as part of a trolling attempt,
they would have been right. But they asked for all records, which is an
obvious troll.
Now the first ammendment comes into the issue, and compounds the search,
which was already iffy, with what could easilly fall under harassment of
the free press. Amending the rights of the press doesn't just mean that
the publication of a paper which says, "Bush is utterly incompetant, and
that was painfully obvious from his original strategy in Afghanistan, as
all of you should have seen, and would have, if you weren't so blind and
stupid with rage. And I'm sure, if he were carefully investigated, that
it would turn out he was still snorting coke," which exercises the free
criticism of a public personage, even to the point of near slander (that
would be the coke line, the first part was a fact, not an accusation) is
protected. It also means that the publisher of said paper has the right
not to have goons hired by a corrupt and facist president harassing him,
or police spending more time investigating him (as opposed to more time,
in the case of someone who has publicly voiced an intention to kill that
devolved primate in question, and done so in a credible manner, checking
very carefully to make sure the second individual is not actually trying
to do so... but not, for example, checking to see if he smokes pot), and
in that respect, monitoring the consumption of published goods is indeed
a 1st amendment issue. It is an issue of principal. I read. I read in
great volume, and from a great many fields. A watchdog agency might get
some funny ideas from what I read, though not internally consistant ones
if they tried to make a criminal pattern of it. But more important than
whether they might get suspicious (and the degrees in physics and a wide
range of hobbies and my current work in artificial nerves explain all of
the nonfiction, aside from the anthropological elements, which are taken
from my dad, an anthropologist... so they can just back off, thank you,)
is whether they might try to profile. I have a friend who the DEA tried
to harrass because he'd been purchasing botanical books and supplies, of
a potentially drug related (and RPGs lead to satanic cults) nature. The
SOBs just ignored the fact that he was a botanist (PhD) and worked for a
legal agricultural hemp research program on the big island of Hawai'i, a
tendancy that's common with those criminal thugs.
He ceased to do business with Barnes N Noble after that visit.
Now, would you trust an agency like the DEA to be honest, or even legal,
in its use of personal information about your reading habits? Would you
purchase books that might be "considered suspicious"? Even if they were
not for criminal purposes? What about books that might be embarassments
if publicly displayed? I buy certain books relating to recovering from,
and dealing with, certain severe forms of child abuse. I don't but them
for myself. I'm recovered just fine, thank you, thanks to some luck and
a few remarkable people... but some of the people I buy them for are not
yet able to admit that it happened to them, at least in the face of this
judgemental and often revolted public, and don't believe that there will
never be some suspicious and unscupled person snooping through the books
they have purchased, and outing them.
Hell, the same probably applies to gay rights books...
And you want an agency with that track record pushing the limit of this?
The people who publish such books might as well hang their hats, if that
happens. No one will risk buying the books if big brother is watching.
-- Still waiting for the Nike endorsement
Seems every week there's a story on Slashdot about how we can all ditch MS Office.
Java is the blue pill
Choose the red pill
Except that as an absolute (as you and most everyone else here put it) it's completely untrue. You ARE responsible for what your say or write and for what you read. (Re: Child porn) It's not at all black and white and yet those are the only 2 colors ever presented here :(
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
As long as the police followed due process in obtaining a warrent, I don't see a problem.
Believe it or not sometimes it is necessary for law enforcement officials to invade our privacy and that's why a warrent is required. A warrent must be issued by a Judge and if the warrent isn't given out capriciously then it should be honored.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
It's a nuanced point, but the 4th Amendment usually applies to the subject of a criminal investigation, not witnesses.
The guy with the meth lab could claim 4th Amendment rights since he was being investigated for a criminal act.
But the Tattered Cover, technically, was a witness whether he legally purchased a legally published book on criminal acts. They were not, and could never be, charged with any crime. Since they weren't in jeopardy, the 4th Amendment doesn't apply.
In contrast, had the "anti-pornography" amendment passed a few years ago then they could be charged with a criminal act for selling certain books, and the 4th Amendment would apply. Fortunately that Amendment was shot down, in part due to the efforts of the owner of the Tattered Cover.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Yes, Freedoms of Speech and Press includes the right of others to listen/read in peace.
This means that the police can't hassle the audience - they can't question you, or demand you identify yourself, or even (arguably) photograph the crowd in an aggressive manner. This is especially noteworthy in light of the recent disclosure that the Denver Police (and remember that it was a Denver DA that signed off on this after the cop's own DA refused to) have been maintaining overly-broad files on "gang" members.
The police can still act in the name of compelling public interest, e.g., keeping people from spilling onto the street, from blocking passage by others, etc.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Actually, its MUCH more complicated than that. This case really is about "unreasonable search and siesure", but the fact that it touches on the first amendment bring a higher standard for justifying the search into play. It touches on the first amendement basically because it appears that the governement seeks to strengthen its case based on the kind of information that a defendant sought to aquire through purchasing books. Any attempt by government to suggest guilt because someone chose to seek information about a controversial subject really does have a chilling effect on free speech.
Note that this case is not about hiding someone's fraudulent use of a credit card in buying a book, or about proving that a suspect was at a bookstore at the time the purchase occurred. This is about the government suggesting that the suspect's choice of the book implies a stronger case for the suspect's guilt.
The decision DID NOT say the search warrant must have been invalid. The decision was, for the most part, narrowly directed at the fact that the procedure that resulted in the warrant was "Ex Parte", or one sided.
Ex Parte proceedings that result in search warrants are often justified on the theory that a suspect might destroy or arrange to destroy evidence if he is warned that there is a judicial proceeding planned during which he can argue against the issue of the warrant. In other words, the government has, in cases where the proposed warrant would be served on a suspect, a compelling interest in surprising the suspect with the warrant.
In this case, the warrant, in question, would be served on an innocent third party, where there was no reason on record to suppose that this third party might attempt to destroy evidence if warned that the government sought to compel it to give up the evidence.
The higher court found that the plantif (the book store) has a reasonable chance of winning their case, that the lower court wasn't quite applying the right test for suitability of warrant application, and that there was no justification for the ex parte nature of the proceeding that produced the warrant. The higher court set the lower court's decision aside and told it to try again. This is not the end of the case.
Adrian
The First Amendment guarantees "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press".
The Supreme Court has decided that this entails a "freedom to read" without supervision of the government.
The Supreme Court has further decided that libraries and bookstores have the right to defend this "freedom to read", both as a matter of public policy and to further their own economic interests, to prevent the "chilling effect" of governmental monitoring.
Incidentally, the Court's opinion noted that the local cops(Thornton, CO) were unable to get a warrant from the local DA's office, even after approaching numerous ADAs, because they all thought it was improper; they eventually got their warrant from the Denver DA, despite the fact that the crime was not committed in that jurisdiction.
...I have came for a cup of coffee and ricochet-covered location (long story) to the Tattered Cover bookstore, and first thing I see on my notebook on slashdot is... a story about tattered cover ;-).
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
I have the right to write a book on "How To Make Methamphetamine".
You have the right to buy and read this book. In a raid on a meth lab, the cops found this book. Now if the state can, in the investigation of this crime (running a meth lab), subpoena the records of the bookstore to get a list of everyone who bought "How To Make Methamphetamine", they know you bought that book even though you have no connection at all with the crime, and were never a suspect.
I think you'll agree that this will tend to make you not buy that book. Your privacy has been invaded.
And this impacts my freedom to write and publish that book.
Any restriction on writing, publishing, selling, and lending books will infringe authors' First Amendment rights. When we pass laws that infringe, we must be very sure that there is a clear and compelling reason to do so, viz. "shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theatre". Routine fact-gathering during a criminal investigation does not qualify (IMHO).
(Note: your video renting records are protected thanks to the Clarence Thomas confirmation brouhaha.)
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
Now the cops want the bookstore to give them a list of all people who bought the book. Where's probable cause? Why should the cops know anything about my reading habits?
If we live in a climate where unpleasant books we buy bring us to the attention of the State, do we still have freedom of expression?
The State no longer will need to ban books. Ashcroft merely says "We will be subpoena'ing all bookstore records for purchasers of Book X."
As the article says, books are different from fertilizer.
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
While you're at it, here's one RMS would like: "The right of freedom of speech and press includes . . . the right to read . . ." (footnote 11)
It's not quite the case. It was a subpoena, not a warrant.
A warrant is a document commanding police to search a given place and seize certain items found therein. A subpoena is a document on the court's authority commanding a person or entity to turn over certain documents to the court. It doesn't typically involve having cops go and search premises for those items.
When I serve a search warrant, I'm working under certain rules. Basically, if a person refuses to open a door after I've knocked and announced and waited the reasonable time required by law, then we knock the door down. If a person refuses to unlock a container that could contain the items named in the warrant, we break it open. If the person obstructs us, we arrest him for obstructing a peace officer.
If they're served with a subpoena and have some reason for not complying, they can try to have the subpoena quashed by the court-IIRC, this is what the bookstore did. Or they can refuse to comply without actually doing it the way the law requires, and that opens the door to contempt proceedings. But subpoenas can be quashed by a court, since the time factor common with warrants usually doesn't exist with subpoenas. They're not generally for evidence which will decay over time or be destroyed by a guilty party if not seized.
The problem here isn't that government is trying to violate my first amendment rights by looking at what I buy, it's that the booksellers aid and abet them by keeping a list of what I bought in the first place!!!!!