Are there legitimate reasons not to be fingerprinted?

[JDonhardt]

Honest reporters should have no problem submitting their fingerprints to get an article published. If they have nothing to hide, giving their prints to exercise their right to free speech shouldnt be a problem.

 

[MTC]

Honest reporters should have no problem submitting their fingerprints to get an article published. If they have nothing to hide, giving their prints to exercise their right to free speech shouldnt be a problem.

They should also have to submit to a background check, get CLEO sign-off, be photographed (depending on statute), and be charged a fee for it.
Sample legislation:

"A person shall not publish, distribute or disseminate any information or material through print, broadcast, electronic, or any other means without a license issued under this chapter being in the person's possession."

I also propose a ban on "assault" computers, word processors, and any other media accessories having features or capabilities I don't like. But failing that, we must - we must - we must have some form of licensing by "the authorities".

After all, bad people have done bad things with them. We have to keep these things out of the "wrong hands". This is a matter of public safety. Compelling State interest. Common sense laws. Reasonable restrictions. Small burden on everyone.

When they express outrage that it's an obvious violation of their 1st Amendment rights and relevant provisions of State Constitutions, we'll just tell them, "Oh, you still have a right - you just have to be licensed and registered."

 

[kludge]

Don't forget everyone who buys a digital camera, camera phone, or computer...

Think of all the child porn we'll prevent. I think it's reasonable, don't you?