Cite as: 505 U. S. 672 (1992)
Opinion of Souter, J.
tical means for advocates and organizations to sell literature within the public forums which are its airports.
Against all of this must be balanced the great need, recognized by our precedents, to give the sale of literature full First Amendment protection. We have long recognized that to prohibit distribution of literature for the mere reason that it is sold would leave organizations seeking to spread their message without funds to operate. "It should be remembered that the pamphlets of Thomas Paine were not distributed free of charge." Murdock, 319 U. S., at 111; see also Schaumburg, supra, at 628-635 (discussing cases). The effect of a rule of law distinguishing between sales and distribution would be to close the marketplace of ideas to less affluent organizations and speakers, leaving speech as the preserve of those who are able to fund themselves. One of the primary purposes of the public forum is to provide persons who lack access to more sophisticated media the opportunity to speak. A prohibition on sales forecloses that opportunity for the very persons who need it most. And while the same arguments might be made regarding solicitation of funds, the answer is that the Port Authority has not prohibited all solicitation, but only a narrow class of conduct associated with a particular manner of solicitation.
For these reasons I agree that the Court of Appeals should be affirmed in full in finding the Port Authority's ban on the distribution or sale of literature unconstitutional, but upholding the prohibition on solicitation and immediate receipt of funds.
Justice Souter, with whom Justice Blackmun and Justice Stevens join, concurring in the judgment in No. 91-339, post, p. 830, and dissenting in No. 91-155.
I
I join in Part I of Justice Kennedy's opinion and the judgment of affirmance in No. 91-339. I agree with Justice
709
Page: Index Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007