Hal Weiner wrote:
> ****
> As far as letting the public into Court libraries, most Federal Court
> libraries, unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, have a paucity of staff. The
> libraries are not considered " public" in the same sense as your local
> Public Library System ...
>
> When attorneys going to the court need a reference for an oral argument
> or are looking up last minute shepardization, they do not need to be
> confronted with people sitting around reading and not reshelving books.
> ( I ALWAYS reshelve my books, even though this seems to have gone out
> of style at my law school library.)
>
> I agree the public should have some right of access to Court
> libraries, even the Supreme Court library, which is critical to the work
> of the Court, the Justices, and their law clerks. But it is not an
> unfettered unregulated right. It should be extended to pro se litigants.
> But the concept that because you might have to show I.D. , that is somehow
> a "national identity card " is ludicrous paranoia.
>
> ... Why should we risk valuable Court library resources and documents to
> a public known for theft of books, eating in libraries, and general
> selfishness? Do you have any idea how long it takes to get a legal
> publisher to replace a missing book or pocket part? Check your life
> expectancy tables ...
>
> That is not to say that a PUBLIC library is not truly PUBLIC. However,
> can the homeless sleep there when the library is closed? ( maybe they
> should be permitted to do so. )
I agree with Hal Weiner that a court library may have a different status than a
public library. A public library is considered to be a "limited public forum".
So long as a member of the public wants to make use of the library's traditional
functions (which does not include sleeping overnight), the state (i.e. the
library administration) can't place an undue burden on that use. While it's true
that libraries must guard against theft and damage, I don't see why that would
require the use of identification. Tattle tapes and bag searches are reasonable
precautions, but what purpose does it serve to require a photo I.D.?
Even if there was some benefit, one has to be careful of any "chilling effect"
that an I.D. requirement might have. The right to free expression includes
within it the right to receive information. This is especially true with regard
to our laws. Does an I.D. requirement have a chilling effect? Clearly,
reasonable people may conclude that it does, otherwise this discussion thread
wouldn't exist.
The U.S. Supreme Court library can be very strict about access since it is not a
limited public forum, and also because two blocks away members of the public can
use the law library reading room at the Library of Congress, which is accessible
without identification (although identification is required when paging items
from the stacks). Having secure courthouse libraries isn't a problem, so long as
all members of the public have access to the laws without facing any chilling
effects.
(On the subject of patrons reshelving books: Many libraries ask patrons NOT to
reshelve books, because they will often end up in the wrong place, in which case
they are as good as lost.)
-Larry Ross
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:50:12 PST