David Honig writes:

Note that if the library in question were not arm of the State, noone would have any First Amendment claim.

And that in turns reminds me of microsoft giving away a free web browser... Here's why: in 19th century NYC there very many excellent private libraries where one could pay a monthly fee and either read inside or borrow books. Then the gubmint (the state, the city, doesn't matter) created "free" public libraries (i.e., paid for by the taxpayers, most of whom probably don't give a flying fuck about libraries), and drove almost all private for-pay libaries out of business. Perhaps the state shouldn't be in the business of providing library services to begin with; then there will be no 1st amendment issue, and if you don't like the censorware used by a private library, why, use another private library, or start your own. (Nor would there be an issue with private libraries refusing service to readers who smell bad.) --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

Colin Rafferty writes:

...

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.

On the contary. when no library was state (meaning, taxpayer) funded, and they were supported by paying users (as was the case in most of the world for most of its history), then multiple libraries would compete for users by providing the best service possible; hence, if one private library chose a bad censorware, its users would switch to another private library. Of course private libraries find it hard to compete with tax-funded "free" ones on price.

...

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.

In my opinion, employers like ML needn't use censorware to prevent you from accessing, say, porn sites; as long as it doesn't interfere with your work performance, who cares if you sit in your cubicle and ogle naked women (or men) on a computer paid for by ML, together with its internet connection. But if they choose to do so, and you don't like it, then you can 1) choose to work for someone else, 2) pay $20/mo for your own internet connection; not run to a federal judge whining that your employer violates your 1st amendment rights by not paying for your access to non-work-related pornography.

...

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.

What about ML telling its employees not to have games on their PCs? What about ML telling its employees not to have any unlicenced software on their PCs and not to download software from BBS/Internet because it might contain viruses? ML has some very confused people working for it. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

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. Paul "(pun intended, though unfunny)" ~Saint

At 9:13 PM -0700 12/22/97, Paul Spirito wrote:

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.

Well, to move this away from First Amendment issues, for the sake of novelty, I know of several nearby state-owned parks (literally) which forbid discharge of firearms or even carrying of firearms. Whither the Second Amendment? (Or has it withered?) --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In , on 12/22/97 at 11:26 PM, dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) said:

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.

I find it quite amazing that anyone would live in a place where you had to pay to see grass and trees. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a-sha1 Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBNJ9G4o9Co1n+aLhhAQKhVwQAgdbqMlGKhQO/gFpSbIFOy+pWxOmF105D VP7DDZGnUL0RlCk0H7IWfO7Z8Y58w/tV0ouyMfX5elZRHR4Mj68faeock8VvEtrk OzoYTOddVC94cEFjMldqCuRkPKheY5w0g2/TJi0juYtRw7f5sBLzNw2B9ytrdvBO Kc/pmsCTukg= =qgap -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"William H. Geiger III" writes:

In , on 12/22/97 at 11:26 PM, dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) said:

...

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.

I find it quite amazing that anyone would live in a place where you had to pay to see grass and trees.

I pay (the NYC+NYS income taxes) for the right to see the grass and the trees in Central Park. I haven't been there in years, but I hear every once in a while about folks getting robbed, raped, and killed there. My late mother was involved with the Central Park conservancy, so I know that unbelieavable amounts of $$$ from taxes and private donations are used for patronage jobs or get stolen outright. If it were up to me, I'd have the fucking thing paved over/filled up and developed into lots of rental apartment units and a few manageably small privatized parks. The $60/annum we pay for the garden membership is a tiny fraction of the taxes we pay; and we get a huge park with french-style flower beds, and an english- style forest, a fish pond, one of the best rose gardens in the country, etc - more stuff that one can see in a single day. The kids love it. I think it's an excellent bargain, and less than we spend occasionally on a single dinner. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

Tim May writes:

At 11:04 AM -0700 12/22/97, 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:

Yep, I started to write just such an analysis this morning when I saw Declan's report. But I felt the arguments had already been made, in other cases, so I never finished the article.

Look, the state-as-employer or the state-as-library has, for ontological reasons, various rules, conditions, etc. which have nothing to do with the state-as-sovereign.

If the state-as-employer insists that English be spoken in offices, is this an infringement of First Amendment rights in even remotely the same way as if the state-as-sovereign illegalized the speaking of Portugese in Texas (or anyplace else that was not a state-as-employer office)?

If it is legal for employers to insist on a particular language being spoken, then it is legal for the government, as an employer to do so.

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.

That way lies madness.

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. Right now, we can fight censoring the Internet in libraries because this is the State acting as Sovereign. In private libraries, fighting this would be

Again, I see no clearcut First Amendment issues here.

It is very seldom that any Constitutional issue is clearcut. That doesn't mean that we should throw it out, though. -- Colin Rafferty -- "In our society, you can state your views, but they have to be correct." --Ernie Hai, co-ordinator of the Singapore Government Internet Project

On Mon, 22 Dec 1997 21:15:42 -0700, Tim May wrote:

If the state-as-employer insists that English be spoken in offices, is this an infringement of First Amendment rights in even remotely the same way as if the state-as-sovereign illegalized the speaking of Portugese in Texas (or anyplace else that was not a state-as-employer office)?

But you seem to have gone beyond this to advocate that the State be able -- without 1A restrictions -- to forbid the speaking of Portuguese anywhere on public property, even by private citizens. Paul