48
Stevens, J., dissenting
a particular benefit entirely, it "may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests—especially his interest in freedom of speech." Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593, 597 (1972). A contrary view would impermissibly allow the government to " 'produce a result which [it] could not command directly.' " Ibid. It is perfectly clear that California could not directly censor the use of this information or the resulting speech. It follows, I believe, that the State's discriminatory ban on access to information—in an attempt to prohibit persons from exercising their constitutional rights to publish it in a truthful and accurate manner—is equally invalid.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
Page: Index Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17Last modified: October 4, 2007