19
interest groups,” among others, to “revisit what they have heard or read,” and thus
to “more fully and accurately evaluate and communicate the subject matter”).
5
C. The First Amendment right to record information.
The general First Amendment right to
gather
information includes the more
specific right to
record
information about the public activities of others, and to use
that recorded information for purposes of expression, petitioning, and self-
governance. The protected recording technologies include photography,
6
audio,
7
and
video (often with audio).
8
The protected documentarians include traditional media,
9
5
Moreover, the First Amendment protects the right to receive information, even if
(unlike here) the recipient plans only private use.
See, e.g., Virginia Bd. of
Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council
, 425 U.S. 748, 757 (1976) (the
“right to receive the advertising” to inform consumer choice);
Red Lion Broad. Co. v.
FCC
, 395 U.S. 367, 390 (1969) (the “paramount” right of broadcast viewers “to
receive” information);
Stanley v. Georgia
, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969) (the “right to
receive” obscenity at home);
Lamont v. Postmaster Gen’l
, 381 U.S. 301, 308 (1965)
(Brennan, J., concurring) (the “right to receive” foreign publications, because “[i]t
would be a barren marketplace of ideas that had only sellers and no buyers”);
Martin v. City of Struthers
, 319 U.S. 141, 143 (1943) (the “right to receive”
information from door-to-door leafleters);
Conant v. Walters
, 309 F.3d 629, 643 (9th
Cir. 2002) at (the “right to receive” information about medical marijuana from a
physician, because “the right to hear and the right to speak are flip sides of the
same coin”).
6
Dorfman v. Meiszner
, 430 F.2d 558, 561-62 (7th Cir. 1970);
Schnell
, 407 F.2d at
1086;
Connell v. Town of Hudson
, 733 F. Supp. 465 (D.N.H. 1990).
7
Dorfman
, 430 F.2d at 561-62;
Blackston v. State of Alabama
, 30 F.3d 117, 119-20
(11th Cir. 1994);
Thompson v. City of Clio
, 765 F. Supp. 1066 (M.D. Ala. 1991).
8
Smith v. City of Cumming
, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11
th
Cir. 2000);
Fordyce v. City of
Seattle
, 55 F.3d 436, 439 (9th Cir. 1995);
Cuviello v. City of Oakland
, 2007 WL
2349325, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2007);
Davis v. Stratton
, 575 F. Supp. 2d 410,
421 (N.D.N.Y. 2008),
rev’d on other grounds,
360 Fed. Appx. 182 (2d Cir. 2010);
Robinson v. Fetterman
, 378 F. Supp. 2d 534, 541 (E.D. Pa. 2005);
Lambert v. Polk
County
, 723 F.Supp. 128 (S.D. Iowa 1989);
Channel 10, Inc. v. Gunnarson
, 337 F.
Supp. 634, 638 (D. Minn. 1972).
Case: 11-1286 Document: 15-1 Filed: 04/15/2011 Pages: 90