[jlogajan]

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.

[rface]

This is the same arguments used by "artists" who are denied federal funds because the denegrate religions or other groups of people.

If my neighbor "artist" gets federal funding for his "art" depicting traditional art then I should also get federal funding depicting blasphemous "art" or racist "art".

If you want to depict a crucifix in urine, then do it on your own dime, not on the federal taxpayers. If you want the computers internet connection hooked to porn, then do it on your own dime, not on the federal taxpayers.

Federal Funding should come with string attached. If you don't want the strings, then don't expect the federal funds.

Ashland, Missouri

[Dog Gone]

I'm not sure how I would have ruled in this case. These laws restrict access to protected speech, and that's probably a violation of the First Amendment.

On the other hand, libraries don't stock every publication that is printed, either, and that's censorship too, if you want to make that argument.