How does the First Amendment protect collection of information?

Question

A comment on an answer to another question makes the assertion

The First Amendment protects both the collection and dissemination of information.

The First Amendment, according to the Library of Congress, states

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It seems a bit of a stretch to go from "not abridging the freedom of speech" to "protecting the collection of information", even if it might feasibly apply to disseminating the information collected. Collecting personal data — the example was applying facial recognition of others to images taken by oneself — is presumably subject to other laws: and I guess that if you have collected it lawfully then the First Amendment allows you to disseminate it.

How does the First Amendment protect the "right" to collect information about others which has not been disseminated by others (under their First Amendment rights)?

Answer 1

The First Amendment is a restriction on the government and nobody else

The First Amendment restricts what the government can do: specifically, they can’t restrict anyone from allowing anyone else from saying whatever they like, except in certain, very narrow areas the Supreme Court has carved out.

So, who is going to make a law prohibiting the collection and dissemination of information since the First Amendment says the Federal government can’t, and, through the Fourteenth Amendment, State governments can’t?

Any such law must pass strict scrutiny. That is, the government must demonstrate that there is a compelling state interest in preventing non-government organisations from collecting or distributing the information. It is not self-evident that there is a compelling state interest in preventing, say, Google, from capturing and disseminating your face. You will definitely have an interest, but the State?

Bearing in mind that you do not have a Constitutional right to privacy - the overturning of Roe v Wade saw to that.