Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News

Tattered Cover v. Thornton Reversed 343

Posted by chrisd from the you-might-want-to-use-cash-to-buy-books dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tattered Cover v. Thornton Reversed More

Tattered Cover v. Thornton Reversed

Comments Filter:

  • That sound you hear..... (Score:5, Funny)

    by s1r_m1xalot ( 218277 ) on Monday April 08, 2002 @04:50PM (#3305760)

    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. ;)

    • > 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. ;)

      New .gov negotiating position: "Well, their legal bills didn't bankrupt 'em, but their bandwidth bills sure will!" ;-)

    • Re:That sound you hear..... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Selanit ( 192811 ) on Monday April 08, 2002 @06:58PM (#3306598)
      Actually, the Tattered Cover is quite well-heeled. I live in Denver, and the place is a Mecca for book lovers. It's the largest bookstore for a thousand miles in any direction. They have a second branch in LoDo (Lower-Downtown) which is smaller but still of quite a respectable size.

      The main branch in downtown Denver has four stories of books (plus a basement). The fifth floor is a well-reviewd restaurant that serves fantastic garlic potatoes (among other things). Oh, and they have a coffee bar which serves the best cappucino in Denver.

      The decor is tasteful and friendly; a big selling point in the Tattered Cover is that they provide lots of big, over-stuffed chairs and let you sit down and read before you buy. In some ways, it feels more like a library than a book store. Their selection of books is phenomenal; There's only one book I've been unable to obtain from them, and that was "On the Erythraean Sea" by Agatharchides of Cnidus. (Contains the only contemporary account of gold-mining techniques in Ptolemaic Egypt; hardly New York Times Best Seller List material.)

      From what I've heard, they have a yearly revenue of a couple million. So, chances are that their web server is more likely to be a dual-cpu RAM-out-the-wazoo behemoth than a PII 450.

    • Sorry to be a pain but they're actually running [netcraft.com] Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP3 on Solaris. Uptime looks good.

  • Judgeorama? (Score:5, Funny)

    by RollingThunder ( 88952 ) on Monday April 08, 2002 @04:50PM (#3305767)
    JUSTICE BENDER delivered the Opinion of the Court.


    "The prosecution can bite my shiny, metal ass. Case dismissed."
    • Futurama notwithstanding, I think this name would be really scary for a judge.

      "Move for a change of venue, since we cannot possibly trust anyone known as Justice Bender to uphold the law faithfully. I'm sure that this case would be better handled by Justice Forsale."

      -Puk

      p.s. That said, I think Justice Breaker would be a great name for a pro wrestler.
    • Wouldn't Judge Kaplan, the residing judge over the DeCSS [eff.org] case, be a JUSTICE BENDER too?
    • Is the judge a woman? "Single female lawyer, fighting for her clients, wearing tiny mini-skirts, and being self-reliant"
    • I'd be a lot more scared if I was in front of Judge Fang.

      "Ok, he's guilty."
      "What! Wait, don't I get to defend myself?"
      "Don't be an asshole."
    • And the Chief Justice' name is MULLARKEY. As in bull mullarkey I suppose. What the heck is going on in CO? Are the picking funny names out of the phone book and offering them spots on the state Supreme Court?

  • It's a shame that this sham has gone this far. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dave-fu ( 86011 ) on Monday April 08, 2002 @04:52PM (#3305781) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • Think about how much time, money, and other resources the average person spends protecting their freedom: 2 minutes on Slashdot compaining. Now lets think about how much time, money and other resources these organizations spend trying to take away our freedon: 24/7/365, millions of dollars, any resource they can use (advertizing, lawyers, congress).

      Who do you think will win this fight?

  • Tattered cover... (Score:3, Funny)

    by doooras ( 543177 ) on Monday April 08, 2002 @04:53PM (#3305792)
    i like that name.

    makes me want to start a computer company called Dented Boxen

    • Re:Tattered cover... (Score:4, Informative)

      by jheinen ( 82399 ) on Monday April 08, 2002 @04:57PM (#3305821) Homepage
      It's actually a really cool bookstore. It's positively huge - four floors, with comfy chairs and couches all over the place. They have successfully perservered as an independent bookstore in the face of competition from the big chains.
      • 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.
        • I can't remember the last time I went into a major bookstore that wasn't playing crappy music over the P.A. I don't know about you, but listening to Britney wail about her love life doesn't exactly make me want to buy books.
  • 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. ;-)
    • 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.

  • In this case (Score:4, Insightful)

    by guamman ( 527778 ) on Monday April 08, 2002 @04:55PM (#3305806)
    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.
    • The first amendment protects speech, religion, and the right to openly demonstrate those.

      It protects the right of association, and by implication the right not to be found guilty by association.

      What is more, the constitution as a whole protects the right to privacy, as violating our privacy is a power not expressly granted the government except in very narrow cases (and therefor, according to the 10th amendment, explicitly denied the government).

      It is a refreshing surprise that at least one court is attempting to hold the government to the constitution, something the government really hasn't done since prohibition and the creation of the FBI. How long this will last is anyone's guess, but I for one am glad Tattered Cover has the courage to at least fight the good fight, for all our sakes.
      • What is more, the constitution as a whole protects the right to privacy, as violating our privacy is a power not expressly granted the government except in very narrow cases (and therefor, according to the 10th amendment, explicitly denied the government).

        And implicitly recognized (not granted) as a right of the people by the Ninth Amendment.
      • Following that reasoning, the constitution also protects our right to free brie on Wednesdays. So if they try to pass some law that says I can't go to Safeway, put some soft cheese in my pocket, and walk right out through the door, they're violating the constitution.

        Just because something is not explicitly denied does not make it implicitly granted.
        • Just because something is not explicitly denied does not make it implicitly granted.

          It does, or can, at least theoretically, when it comes to construing the Constitution, because of the wording of the 10th amendment. The federal government has no business making laws about shoplifting cheeses; that is taken care of just fine on the local level anyway.

          An argument can certainly be made that the federal government is overstepping its bounds here in one way or another without resorting to utter anarchy and cheese thievery.

          Meghan

    • Re:In this case (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Zoop ( 59907 ) on Monday April 08, 2002 @05:28PM (#3306034)
      if the government has a warrant there might not be much that can be done

      Read the actual decision in the word document. It's pretty plain there that the expression of speech includes consuming speech without harassment, which implies a right to privacy. While it would be better explicit, this is what a woman's right to choose is (mistakenly, IMO) based on. (I'd prefer it be based on property rights, but that's a whole 'nuther argument).

      There's a lot of constitutional scholarship that has found a right to privacy implicit in the other rights, including those expressed in the First Amendment. This decision attempts to set up a test, essentially that the hated "compelling state interest," must be determined in an adversarial proceeding before seizure occurs--that means not just the DA and a judge in a darkened room, but a hearing giving the affected party a chance to object. And on the basis of the facts of the case, the Court did not find compelling state interest sufficient to outweigh the constitutional harm.

      The Supreme Court may yet overturn it, but it would be an interesting precedent if upheld. That would significantly curtail the ability of police to do various seizures without a suspect's knowledge. Since several of those things (e.g. wiretaps) have passed constitutional muster before, that's where I see this to be in danger of being overturned, rather than a lack of a right to privacy.
      • "compelling" and "interest" are not legal terms by any means, no matter how ofter lawyers use them. And remember, usually when they do, they are trying to deceive.

        Not that I don't believe in a right to privacy -- explicitly (at least partially) defined in the 3rh and 4th amendments.

      • Re:In this case (Score:2, Informative)

        by sdowney ( 447548 )
        Since the decision is EXPLICITLY grounded in the Colorado constitution's Article 2, rather than in the First Amendment, the US Supreme Court has no reason to review the case.
        Judge Bender held that the Colorado Constitution granted wider free speach protections than the First Amendment.
    • 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.
  • 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 [tatteredcover.com], 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 [findlaw.com] Amendment...

    Anyhow, the upshot is, I'd appreciate someone pointing me to the background for this story so I can remove the "un"...

    • For an explanation you may find helpful, take a look at:
      http://w3.trib.com/FACT/1st.lev.tatteredcoverrec.h tml [trib.com]
      When you buy a book, you don't expect to have a law enforcement agent searching through the store's records at some later date to see what books you have purchased. Such an action offends America's sense of privacy. It smacks of a police state.

      Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]

    • Re:An uninformed opinion (Score:5, Informative)

      by s390 ( 33540 ) on Monday April 08, 2002 @05:21PM (#3305999) Homepage
      ...I'd appreciate someone pointing me to the background for this story...

      OK, here's the story. The local police busted a meth lab and found how-to drug manuals in a trailer, along with receipts from the bookstore. But the receipts didn't name the purchaser of the books, so the local DA subpoenaed the bookstore's customer records. The bookstore fought the subpoena and won.



    • The question you appear to be asking here is whether or not free speech covers anonymous speech. This is still an issue that is being debated in the state courts. The KKK has been semi-succesful in overturning some state courts on this matter because they (along with ACLU backing) claim they should be able to march in rallies with their hoods hiding their identities.


      The Tattered Cover is trying to defend its right to sell (publish) books to anonymous readers. The thought here is that if book purchasers were aware that their reading habits were under scrutiny by the govt., then they would be less likely to purchase books containing unpopular opinions. This infringes on the Tattered Cover's ability to speak (sell books containing) unpopular opinions.

      Perhaps a more immediate example is your ability to post to slashdot as your own login or an Anonymous Coward. Wouldn't you feel like your 1st Amendment rights were being revoked if there wasn't that 'Post Anonymously' checkbox available? Obviously there are means to backtrack IP addresses, etc. in cases where a poster has threatened the life of the pres., etc. but those mechanisms wouldn't be used to suppress unpopular speech.
    • The link provided at the top of the page gives you a list of court cases. Find the Tattered Cover one and click on the case number. You get a Word Doc (Abiword handles it fine) that gives you all the details of the case.
    • 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.
    • You should read the court's opinion [state.co.us] it gives a decent background and also explains why the first admendment argument is anything but weak.

      The upside of doing your homework is that you don't make embarassing statements like 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.
  • 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.

  • My god...someone give this man a medal! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Cutriss ( 262920 ) on Monday April 08, 2002 @04:57PM (#3305823) Homepage
    "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?

  • Tattered Cover (Score:5, Informative)

    by daviskw ( 32827 ) on Monday April 08, 2002 @05:00PM (#3305849)
    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.
    • The TC's computer book selection is actually fairly good. Of course, if there's a computer book I need that I can't find there, I can always go to Softpro Books, which sells nothing but computer books (and Linux distros, and the like). They also have 2 stores in the Denver metro area, in Englewood and Boulder.

      But for overall selection, no bookstore beats TC, in my experience. (I'm still boycotting Amazon.com.) Plus I get the warm fuzzies of supporting an independent bookseller, and one which isn't afraid to stand up for its rights or the rights of its customers.

      Eric

    • I went to High School in Denver betewen 81 and 83, and lived within walking distance of the original Tattered Cover in the Cherry Creek shopping district. I chatted with the owner a lot, and she has a genuine love for books, the press, and freedom of expression. I was not suprised to find that she holds such similar regard for privacy rights to fight this search warrant with all her resources.

      I've lived in a lot of cities and never come across another general interest bookstore as complete as the Tattered Cover. Cheers and congratulations are due all around.

  • Screw the Tattered Cover (Score:3, Funny)

    by Mad Man ( 166674 ) on Monday April 08, 2002 @05:02PM (#3305862)
    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?
    • 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.
    • And while we're at it, we should round up all the goddamn muslims and put them in concentration camps!

      Whoops! I call Goodwin's Law! [tripod.com]

  • En Banc (Score:2, Informative)

    by Davak ( 526912 )
    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

  • 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.

  • Supreme Court (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Artagel ( 114272 ) on Monday April 08, 2002 @05:20PM (#3305996) Homepage
    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.

    • Re:Supreme Court (Score:3, Insightful)

      by d5w ( 513456 )
      I doubt the U.S. Supreme Court will take it.
      With all the usual IANAL qualifications, I'll give another reason in support of this statement: not only did the Colorado court rule on actions in Colorado, as the above comment says, but the court based its decision on the Colorado constitution. My understanding is that, while the Supreme Court sometimes corrects state courts on interpretations of the US constitution, it stays away from telling them what their own state constitutions mean.
  • 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.

  • HTML version of court opinion (above is MSWord) (Score:3, Informative)

    by Seth Finkelstein ( 90154 ) on Monday April 08, 2002 @05:26PM (#3306021) Homepage Journal
    HTML version of the opinion (the link given in the posting leads to an MS Word)

    http://www.cobar.org/CFwebFiles/Content/dspOpinion . fm?OpinionID=560 [cobar.org]

    With this case, we recognize that both the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 10 of the Colorado Constitution protect an individual's fundamental right to purchase books anonymously, free from governmental interference. Law enforcement officials implicate this right when they seek judicial approval of a search warrant authorizing seizure of customer purchase records from an innocent, third-party bookseller. This case requires us to decide what test should be applied to balance the constitutional rights of individuals and bookstores against the duty of law enforcement officials to investigate crime.

    Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]

  • A great decision (Score:2, Insightful)

    by brickbat ( 64506 )
    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.

  • Why bother to support your local bookstore? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by melquiades ( 314628 ) on Monday April 08, 2002 @05:28PM (#3306036) Homepage
    One question:

    Can you imagine Barnes & Noble, Borders, or Amazon.com doing what the Tattered Cover has done?

  • Subpoena, not search warrant! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Spazmania ( 174582 ) on Monday April 08, 2002 @05:38PM (#3306082) Homepage
    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!
  • From the Court Document (emphasis mine:)

    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?

  • Best part of ruling (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jacobb ( 93907 )
    Here's what I think is the best part of the ruling:

    "
    The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects more than simply the right to speak freely. 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. 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."
    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.    "
    (emphasis added)

    I wish they had come up with this back in the Crypto-as-Munition export control days.

    NB. This is from pp. 17-18 of ruling [state.co.us].

  • Freedom to think (Score:3, Informative)

    by HardCase ( 14757 ) on Monday April 08, 2002 @06:14PM (#3306358)
    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-
    • "Without the right to receive information and ideas, the protection of speech... 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.'"

      Does the above apply only if the expressions and ideas are written in ink on paper?

      What if it were to apply to expressions and ideas written in ones and zeros?

  • Thanks, TC (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Pinball Wizard ( 161942 ) on Monday April 08, 2002 @06:15PM (#3306365) Homepage Journal
    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!

  • Before you break out the champagne, ... (Score:5, Informative)

    by blamanj ( 253811 ) on Monday April 08, 2002 @06:20PM (#3306390)
    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?
    [editorandpublisher.com]
    Details here.

    The FBI was never here, go about your business.
    • The Patriot Act is just like the DMCA. It's proponents are afraid to use its most draconian measures for fear that the result would be the courts striking the whole thing from the books. The Patriot Act, like the DMCA, is a means to cower the defenseless. No one who has the means to defend themselves will be attacked with any controversial provisions in the Patriot Act. In other words, the prohibition against the media reporting seizures is irrelevent, because no one the media would care to report on will be targetted by the seizure provisions.

  • A modest proposal (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kindbud ( 90044 ) on Monday April 08, 2002 @06:30PM (#3306453) Homepage
    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 [tatteredcover.com], 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.

    • Re:A modest proposal (Score:2, Insightful)

      by klocwerk ( 48514 )
      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.

      Someone please mod this up, I'm out of mod points atm.
      How many of those people slamming microsoft for a monopoly will turn around and buy from Amazon, hmm?
    • This is probably the best idea to hit /. in a while. Stop linking to Amazon, with their idiotic 1-Click patent, and start linking to someone who has better policies and practices. All my book links are going to them as of now.

      Thinking in Java [tatteredcover.com], Bruce Eckel

  • 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?
  • 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Do you guys know what you're doing, or are you just hacking?

Close