Textually, the First Amendment refers only to a right to speak and makes no mention of a right "to listen," "to hear," or "to know." Nevertheless, in Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 96 S. Ct. 1817(1976), the Supreme Court held that "the protection afforded [by the First Amendment] is to the communication, to its source and to its recipients both." Id. at 756. Therefore, where one enjoys a right to speak, others hold a "reciprocal right to receive" that speech, which "may be asserted" in court. Id. at 757. To assert a "right to receive" claim, there must be an otherwise "willing speaker." Id. at 756. This ensures that the party bringing the "right to receive" claim has standind to sue, i.e., that "there is an injury in fact that would be redressed by a favorable decision." United States v. Wecht, No. 06-3098, 484 F.3d 194, 2007 WL 1086308, at *5 (3d Cir. Apr. 12, 2007). While the speaker need not actually speak and run the risk of Government retaliation, she or he must at least be willing to say that but for the Government's policy, threat, decree or other action the frightened them into silence, they would have spoken. Pa. Family Inst., Inc. v. Black, 489 F.3d 156, 165-166 (3rd Cir. 2007).
We believe that one of most significant harms caused by the Trump Administration's unprecedented attacks on public officials, government employees, scientists, researchers and members of the Academy is the loss of the ideas, opinions and expertise that they otherwise would have communicated. We are interested in hearing from current or former Government employees, academics and others who have changed their speech or refrained from speaking based on fear of Government retaliation. Your communications with us are completely confidential and will not be used for any purpose absent your express written consent.