resolution of the issue always involves a balancing by the courts of the competingprivate and public interests
Here it says that it is the Court's job to determine if the safety of the public outweighs the rights of a person's privacy. The court seems to allow itself to change positions based on the given case. That would make sense because it appears that the court has switched sides on the issue since Watkins.
to subjectthem to ridicule and social and economic retaliation, I cannot agree that this is a legislativefunction.
Justice Black simplifies Congress's actions to dealing out punishments instead of authentically investigating. If this is true, most people would agree that the power to punish belongs in the courts, not Congress.
Congress can abridge speech and association if this Court decides thatthe governmental interest in abridging speech is greater than an individual's interest in exercisingthat freedom....
This statement reminds me of the language used when leaders rationalize conflicts with the constitution. The idea that a government can change what rights are guaranteed depending on how much danger it is in.