may be imposed.”). A government’s power to regulate solicitors, even through identification gathering, is of course bounded by the First Amendment. See Martin, 319 U.S. at 149, 63 S.Ct. 862 (all regulations must provide "due respect for the constitutional rights of those desiring to distribute literature and those desiring to receive it”). In various contexts, the Court has struck down on First Amendment grounds regulations requiring speakers or an association's members to identify themselves. See, e.g., Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 80 S.Ct. 536, 4 L.Ed.2d 559 (1960) (striking down municipal ordinance requiring all handbills to contain the author and distributor's names); Brown v. Socialist Workers 74 Campaign Committee, 459 U.S. 87, 103 S.Ct. 416, 74 L.Ed.2d 250 (1982) (<HOLDING>). 12 . Pleasant Grove attempts to fall back on
holding that names of private individuals appearing in files within the ambit of exemption 7c are categorically exempt from disclosure unless disclosing such information is necessary in order to confirm or refute compelling evidence that the agency is engaged in illegal activity holding that requirement of disclosing names and addresses of campaign contributors cannot constitutionally be applied to the party holding a party cannot be joined to prevent removal where no cause of action can be brought against that party holding that californias appropriation statute covered appropriation of pseudonyms because nicknames and pen names are names holding that records regarding complaints against state police officers which would be exempt from disclosure when unredacted where no longer exempt after the names of state police troopers the names of complainants and all identifying information were redacted