 | United States. Supreme Court, John Chandler Bancroft Davis, Henry Putzel, Henry C. Lind, Frank D. Wagner - Courts - 1986 - 998 pages
...Inc., 427 US 50, 70 (1976) (plurality opinion).7 'In Zemel v. Rusk, 381 US 1 (1965), the Court said: "The right to speak and publish does not carry with it the unrestrained right to gather information." Id., at 17 (emphasis supplied). In Branzburg v. Hayes, 408... | |
 | United States. Supreme Court - Courts - 1965 - 942 pages
...failure to validate appellant's passport results in an inhibition of action and not a restriction of a First Amendment right. The right to speak and publish does not carry with it an unrestrained right to gather information. Pp. 16-17. (d) The Passport Act of 1926 contains sufficiently... | |
 | United States. Congress. House. Foreign Affairs - 1966 - 306 pages
...failure to validate appellant's passport results in an inhibition of action and not a restriction of a First Amendment right. The right to speak and publish does not carry with it an unrestrained right to gather information. Pp. 16-17. (d) The Passport Act of 1926 contains sufficiently... | |
 | E. Lauterpacht - Law - 1994 - 510 pages
...flow. For example, the prohibition of unauthorized entry into the White House diminishes the citizen's opportunities to gather information he might find...right to speak and publish does not carry with it the unrestrained right to gather information. " Finally, appellant challenges the 1926 Act on the ground... | |
 | United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary - 1972 - 1362 pages
...flow. For example, the prohibition of unauthorized entry into the White House diminishes the citizen's opportunities to gather information he might find...right to speak and publish does not carry with it the unrestrained right to gather information." (p. 1281) The Court obviously felt that the public's "right... | |
 | United States. Congress. House. Internal Security - 1972 - 240 pages
...flow. For example, oh.e prohibition of unauthorized entry into the White House diminishes the citizen's opportunities to gather information he might find...right to speak and publish does not carry with it the unrestrained right to gather information. Finally, appellant challenges the 1926 Act on the ground... | |
| |