Replies

I expected to find this posted, but didn't.

The article didn't say, but I suspect that this ruling will be apealed. The article also doesn't say who the judges are.

Just because a library doesn't get "Federal Funds" doesn't mean its a violation of the First Amendment.

Who knows the judges in this case?

Ashland, Missouri

Just because a library doesn't get "Federal Funds" doesn't mean its a violation of the First Amendment.

Well, yes and no. Suppose the federal government started sending out bonus checks to everyone but Catholics. You could say that no one was entitled to the bonus checks, so it isn't depriving anyone of some natural right.

Anyhow, I hope that illustrates the reasoning that is usually used in these issues.

The United States Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue. Petitioned by the National Endowment for the Arts, case No. 97-371. Judge Souter argues (in general) "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the 1st Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression or idea simply because society finds the expression or idea itself offensive or disagreeable." He continues, "The 1st Amendment forbids the government to regulate speech in ways that favor some viewpoints or ideas at the expense of others."

More specifically though, The American Civil Liberties Union, Case No. 96-511, challenging the constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), Justice O'Conner writes, "I view the Communications Decency Act of 1996 as a little more than an attempt by Congress to create "adult zones" on the Internet. This user-based zoning is accomplished through the use of screening software (such as Cyber Patrol or SurfWatch) or browsers with screening capabilities, both of which search addresses and text for keywords that, are associated with "adult" sites and, if the user wishes, blocks access to such sites. Precedent indicates that the creation of such zones can be constitutionally sound. Despite the soundness of its purpose, however, portions of the CDA are unconstitutional because they stray from the blueprint our prior cases have developed for constructing a "zoning law" that passes constitutional muster." She continues, " The creation of "adult zones" is by no means a novel concept. States have long denied minors access to certain establishments frequented by adults. States have also denied minors access to speech deemed to be "harmful to minors." The Court has previously sustained such zoning laws, but only if they respect the 1st Amendment rights of adults and minors. That is to say, a zoning law is valid if it does not unduly restrict adult access to the material.

This case makes clear that a "zoning" law is valid only if adults are still able to obtain the regulated speech. If they cannot, the law does more than simply keep children away from speech they may have no right to obtain, it interferes with the rights of adults to obtain constitutionally protected speech and again, effectively "reduce[s] the adult population to reading only what is fit for children. The 1st Amendment does not tolerate such interference."

Maybe the solution is to take the computers out of libraries. A bit draconian, perhaps, but the primary purpose of libraries is to make books available, and they aren't doing a very good job of that these days. Too much space and too many resources are being diverted to computers, office space, and other peripherals.

Most people can go on-line at home. Or visit a cyber cafe. I don't see any other way of dealing with this issue, because you know the liberals will never leave it alone, and the librarians' union seems to favor pornography.