But the high court declared that the First Amendment and the Colorado Constitution "protect an individual's fundamental right to purchase books anonymously, free from governmental interference."
Nuff Said
To: ATOMIC_PUNK
A bizarre ruling with no basis in constitutional law.
To: ATOMIC_PUNK
Nice to see our rights being upheld on occasion.
3 posted on
04/08/2002 2:18:03 PM PDT by
TheDon
To: ATOMIC_PUNK
"protect an individual's fundamental right to purchase books anonymously, free from governmental interference." What is sad is that it took a State Supreme Court ruling to figure this no-brainer out.
8 posted on
04/08/2002 2:28:43 PM PDT by
Drew68
To: ATOMIC_PUNK
ATOMIC_PUNK
Good name!
To: ATOMIC_PUNK
"Advanced Techniques of Clandestine Psychedelic and Amphetamine Manufacture" by
Uncle Fester and "The Construction and Operation of Clandestine Drug Laboratories" by
Jack B. Nimble.
Interesting noms de plume (or at least I'm assuming.)
To: ATOMIC_PUNK
But the high court declared that the First Amendment and the Colorado Constitution "protect an individual's fundamental right to purchase books anonymously, free from governmental interference." No if we can just get a judge to rule this way on guns we'll be in the clear.
To: ATOMIC_PUNK
Someone should send this ruling to Dianne Feinstein and Orrin Hatch.
To: ATOMIC_PUNK
The Tattered Cover --- my
mostest favorite book store in the
whole wide world!!!!!!
Everytime I'm in Denver, I have to visit that fantabulous store. I envy all of you in that area.
50 posted on
04/08/2002 6:09:40 PM PDT by
Exit148
To: ATOMIC_PUNK
Shazam! Eureka! Good goobelie goo! The perfect place to store personal/private medical records! Let the a-holes go fish somewhere else! Plus the stores can make a ton of $ storing records. So glad I had this brainstorm. Pat me on the head, Monica!
56 posted on
04/08/2002 8:48:35 PM PDT by
Waco
To: ATOMIC_PUNK
My biggest issue here (and it was true of the Monica Lewinsky suit to get details from the bookstore she visited)...
Why are bookstores even keeping a tab on who bought what??? The easiest way to prevent such investigation is to not keep such records. In store purchases need no such paperwork and mail order accounts can be cleared after the shipment has been received.
But we live in a world where video stores, grocery stores, online stores (e.g. Amazon) see great value in having a history of your buying/rental habits.
63 posted on
04/08/2002 11:51:53 PM PDT by
weegee
To: ATOMIC_PUNK
This also reminds me of a case in Japan where a child's severed head was impaled on a fence. The police researched video stores to identify people who had a habit of renting horrifying videos.
The culprit ended up being a 13 year old classmate (I never heard of any link between the video stores and the guilty party).
64 posted on
04/08/2002 11:56:11 PM PDT by
weegee
To: ATOMIC_PUNK
"SHAKEDOWN"
The life and lies of Jesse the Slob!
To: ATOMIC_PUNK
What? There's a "right" in the Colorado constitution to purchase books anonymously, but not a rifle or pistol? Hmmmmmmm. Nevertheless, the court did not close off disclosure of the book purchaser, only setting a higher standard for the search warrant -- "compelling" interest. Not a bad standard, I think. But why not apply it to other private purchases?
84 posted on
04/09/2002 8:50:48 AM PDT by
Whilom
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson