berezina@qed.net (Paul Spirito) writes:
On Mon, 22 Dec 1997 10:04:47 -0800, David Honig wrote:
Note that if the library in question were not arm of the State, noone would have any First Amendment claim.
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:
It's true that in the absence of public libraries this would not be an issue; however, it is an example of the state acting as sovereign, not employer. We're concerned with the right of patrons to access material, & they are not state employees. The situation is analogous to a public = park: just because the state owns it, does that mean it can forbid, say, = criticism of the state in it? No, of course not, though it has broader discretion = in limiting the speech of public employees in the park, while on-duty.
Why should any state be in the business of owning and running any parks? We pay $60/year for a family membership in an excellent private park. Most public parks in NYC are extremely unpleasant and dangerous places. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps