Parties: Kleindienst v. Mandel
Date: 1972-06-29
Identifiers:
Opinions:
Segment Sets:
Paragraph: 30 - N100* N101* 'It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail . . .. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.'
Notes:
Preferred Terms:
Phrase match: the right of the public to
Search time: 2018-03-15 12:38:56 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef Segmenter: ars9ef
Paragraph: 76 - In saying these things, I am merely repeating established First Amendment law. Indeed, this Court has already applied that law in a case concerning the entry of communist doctrine from foreign lands. In Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301, 85 S.Ct. 1493, 14 L.Ed.2d 398 (1965), this Court held that the right of an American addressee to receive communist political propaganda from abroad could not be fettered by requiring the addressee to request in writing its delivery from the Post Office. See id., at 308, 85 S.Ct., at 1497 (Brennan, J., concurring). The burden imposed on the right to receive information in our case is far greater than in Lamont, with far less justification.
Notes:
Preferred Terms:
Phrase match: the right of an American addressee
Search time: 2018-03-15 12:38:56 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef Segmenter: ars9ef
Paragraph: 51 - N264* learnThe First Amendment involves not only the right to speak and publish but also the right to hear, to learn, to know.
Notes:
Preferred Terms:
Phrase match: the right to speak and publish
Search time: 2018-01-12 14:48:12 Searcher: ars9ef Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk
Paragraph: 68 - receipt of informationtruthAs the majority correctly demonstrates, in a variety of contexts this Court has held that the First Amendment protects the right to receive information and ideas, the freedom to hear as well as the freedom to speak. The reason for this is that the First Amendment protects a process, in Justice Brandeis' words, N265* 'reason as applied through public discussion,' Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375, 47 S.Ct. 641, 648, 71 L.Ed. 1095 (1927) (concurring opinion); and the right to speak and hear including the right to inform others and to be informed about public issues—are inextricably part of that process. The freedom to speak and the freedom to hear are inseparable; they are two sides of the same coin. But the coin itself is the process of thought and discussion. The activity of speakers becoming listeners and listeners becoming speakers in the vital interchange of thought is the 'means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth.' Ibid.; see Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4, 69 S.Ct. 894, 895, 93 L.Ed. 1131 (1949). Its protection is 'a fundamental principle of the American government.' Whitney v. California, supra, 274 U.S., at 375, 47 S.Ct., at 648. The First Amendment means that Government has no power to thwart the process of free discussion, to 'abridge' the freedoms necessary to make that process work.
Notes:
Preferred Terms:
Phrase match: the right to receive information and
Search time: 2018-01-12 14:48:12 Searcher: ars9ef Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk
Paragraph: 28 - 'It is now well established that the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas. N110* 'This freedom (of speech and press) . . . necessarily protects the right to receive . . ..' Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 143, 63 S.Ct. 862, 863, 87 L.Ed. 1313 (1943) . . ..' Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 1247, 22 L.Ed.2d 542 (1969).
Notes:
Preferred Terms:
Phrase match: freedom (of speech and press) . . . necessarily
Search time: 2017-11-10 14:59:38 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk
Paragraph: 29 - The Court there held that a labor organizer's right to speak and the rights of workers 'to hear what he had to say,' id., at 534, 65 S.Ct. at 324, were both abridged by a state law requiring organizers to register before soliciting union membership.
Notes:
Preferred Terms:
Phrase match: , were both abridged by a state law
Search time: 2018-03-15 11:58:04 Searcher: clm6u Editor: tcs9pk Segmenter: tcs9pk
Paragraph: 29 - The Court there held that a labor organizer's right to speak and the rights of workers N2* 'to hear what he had to say,' id., at 534, 65 S.Ct. at 324, were both abridged by a state law requiring organizers to register before soliciting union membership.
Notes:
Preferred Terms:
Phrase match: , were both abridged by a state
Search time: 2018-03-15 11:53:17 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef Segmenter: ars9ef