David Honig writes:
At 10:23 AM 12/22/97 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Mainstream Loudoun, a local group, and 11 other plaintiffs are challenging Loudoun County's decision to adopt one of the country's most iron-handed Internet policies, The Netly News has learned....
The plaintiffs hope to persuade a federal judge that X-Stop's overzealousness violates not just traditions of intellectual freedom in libraries, but the First Amendment as well....
Note that if the library in question were not arm of the State, noone would have any First Amendment claim.
Which is why it is a good thing that Libraries are state funded.
This is reminiscent of TM's recent (controversial) analysis of the fired county trashworker/author, and suggests a clearer example of the confusion caused by State as Employer:
I don't think I saw TM's analysis, since I am on fight-censorship, but I don't see where there is any confusion. Except in very limited circumstances (National Security), the government cannot hire or fire a contractor (or employee) based on unrelated speech.
It is considered legal and moral for a *private employer* can use censorware to restrict their LAN's access.
It may be legal, but whether it is moral is certainly debatable.
But if the employer is the State, and does this, the First might be dragged in -confusing the issue, since the government acting as State is constrained (by the constitution) differently from the government acting as Employer (constrained by employment law).
Why is this confusing? It is very simple to tell the difference between the State as employer and the State as censor. A Public Library is allowed restrict Internet Access to its employees on the job, since it is acting as an employer. A Public Library may not be allowed to restrict Internet Access to its patrons (we will see how Loudoun turns out).
Perhaps some critical of Tim's analysis think that when government is employer it can't censor its LAN? Can't remove games from government owned PCs?
When the government removes games, pictures, etc. from its PCs it is acting as a responsible efficient employer.
Not necessarily responsible, but it is legal.
When the government attempts to remove games, pictures, etc. from stores it is acting criminally.
This is correct. Again, I don't see what is confusing about this. -- Colin