Colin Rafferty writes:
Tim May writes:
When the state-as-sovereign sets up libraries that don't carry Everything (hint: and not even the LOC carries everything), then the choices it makes can be seen by some to be First Amendment violations.
This is not a First Amendment violation.
The government is not required to promote all speech, but only to not restrict it. Selection of books for a library does not abdridge freedom of speech, since the act of not selecting does not reduce speech.
Modifying the content of the selected books would be an infriging act, since that is a reduction.
They cannot subscribe to Playboy and then put pasties on the nipples. Nor can they subscribe to the Internet and then filter it.
And the difference between `selecting' which books to acquire for the library and `selecting' which web pages to receive is what? Those pages `not selected' by the Internet filter are not `reduced' any more than the `not selected' books. There is no consistent application of principle in your arguments.
A better solution is to get Government out of the business of running libraries or providing Net access.
I fail to see how this will solve anything.
Then rub a couple of neurons together and see if you can generate a spark. If the government isn't in the business of either `selecting' books or internet pages, then there is no `selecting' to be done in either case and therefore nothing to be solved. -Frondeur