Re: Right to pr0n overruled

In <103sbmg$1np92$2@dont-email.me> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> writes:

[snip]

So please tell me why Clarence Thomas is right and I'm wrong. The ruling
seems to be at odd with the various cases that the First Amendment
protects anonymous speech (well, publishing). Why doesn't the First
Amendment protect anonymity here?

and let's ask Robert Bork, too.

You whooshed me. I don't know what reported opinions with regard to
speech and publishing he wrote on the D.C. Circuit Court.

His history is in the same extended family.  When his
video tape rental records got leaked and publicized,
it led to laws about privacy.  well, I'll quote wiki:

On September 25, the City Paper published Dolan's survey of Bork's
rentals in a cover story titled "The Bork Tapes".[4] The revealed
tapes proved to be modest, innocuous, and non-salacious, consisting
of a garden-variety of films such as thrillers, British drama,
and those by Alfred Hitchcock.[5][6][7] The subsequent leakage
and coverage of the tapes resulted in Congress passing the
Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), which forbids the sharing of
video tape rental information, amidst a bipartisan consensus on
intellectual privacy.[8][9][10] Proponents of the VPPA,
including Senator Patrick Leahy, contended that the leakage
of Bork's tapes was an outrage.[11][12] The bill was passed in
just over a year after the incident.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bork_tapes
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
     dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]