I don't read the ALA's position at all as being totally against everything. I
believe the ALA's position is that we shouldn't filter the Internet, but that
libraries should be allowed to make and enforce rules about behavior.
--Bryan
David Leone wrote:
>
> I disagree that libraries *have* to provide access to porn sites. If in a
> free society, as you say, we are to police ourselves, why should a librarian
> be prohibited from creating the kind of environment they, and with input
> from their community, decide is best for all patrons.
>
> It won't take long for our public libraries to loose their place in society
> because regular folks will choose not to frequent the library because of the
> kind of environment that is created when people who come only to view
> pornography are encouraged by a false sense of entitlement and a lack of
> action on the part of the library boards to keep porn out.
>
> The ACLU can sue, but I would sincerely hope that the public library could
> win a lawsuit in which they argue that as an institution they should not be
> coerced into making pornography available.
>
> Because pornography is disallowed in a particular library does not inhibit
> anyone's freedom of expression. Anyone who so desires can venture into any
> number of more appropriate places to consume as much as they desire.
>
> The ALA is absolutely wrong on this issue - there is no slippery slope.
>
> David Leone
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: O. R. Armstrong [mailto:rarmstrong@casefinder.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 8:27 AM
> To: Linda Defendeifer; Law Library mailing list
> Subject: Re: LAW-LIB digest 1988
>
> Dear Ms Defendeifer:
>
> Patrons certainly bear responsibility for following library
> rules, just as citizens bear responsibility for obeying laws. The
> point of my argument is that under the prevailing interpretation
> of the First Amendment, it would be unconstitutional for a
> library to issue a rule regulating what patrons can or cannot
> view. The ACLU, among others, would (probably) sue to stop any
> librarian who attempted to do so. What the library *can* regulate
> is behavior, and my point is that as long as the behavior of a
> patron falls within the rules, that patron can view whatever he
> or she wishes.
>
> Don't get me wrong; when Thomas Jefferson and the boys wrote
> the First Amendment, they could not forsee that a rude,
> undisciplined and hedonistic citizenry would justify any sort of
> foulness as freedom of expression. At the same time, the First
> Amendment prevents extremists from burning Harry Potter.
>
> I don't have answers to the sorts of questions American
> civilization faces as we enter the 21st century; I only have my
> opinions. We are only free to govern ourselves, and we aren't
> doing that. We have become a "liberal" and non-judgmental
> society, to the extent that we tolerate increasingly outrageous
> behavior in our fellow citizens. Eventually, however, the
> behavior becomes so outrageous that there is a reaction and the
> activity is banned or a law is passed. Every law that we pass is
> another little bit of freedom that we relinquish to the
> government because of our collective inability to govern
> ourselves.
>
> (This will probably be my final posting on this subject,
> because it is usually at about this point in the discussion of
> some topic that a bunch of people start objecting that the
> Law-Lib List shouldn't be used as a forum for discussing these
> sorts of things.)
>
> Russ Armstrong
> russ@casefinder.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Linda Defendeifer" <defender@peaknet.net>
> To: "Law Library mailing list" <law-lib@ucdavis.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 3:26 AM
> Subject: Re: LAW-LIB digest 1988
>
> > So if I give each of two people $1000, and one donates hers to
> Habitat
> > for Humanity and the other uses hers to solicit my murder, the
> problem
> > is U.S. currency? Your argument seems to assume that the
> patron bears
> > no responsbility for following library rules.
> >
> >
> > For what it's worth (I'm a lawyer but not a librarian), it
> > does not seem to me that evicting patrons who view
> "inapropriate"
> > websites can be considered as dealing with behavior. Assume two
> > patrons are sitting quietly in front of their terminals, doing
> > nothing more than navigating to various websites and viewing
> > them. There is no difference in "behavior" between the patron
> who
> > is viewing an "appropriate" website versus the patron who is
> > viewing an "inapropriate" website. The only difference is the
> > content of the website being viewed. And that, given the First
> > Amendment, is the crux of the problem.
> >
> > Russ Armstrong
> > russ@casefinder.com
> >
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:56:38 PST