From: Jeff Shultz 

Bill Lucy wrote:

> I, for one, am happy with today's Supreme Court decision in US v. ALA.
> I've read all 5(!) opinions and I honestly think that Justice Breyer said
> it best in this paragraph from his concurring opinion:
>
> "At the same time, in my view, the First Amendment does not here demand
> application of the most limiting constitutional approach–that of “strict
> scrutiny.” The statutory restriction in question is, in essence, a kind
> of “selection” restriction (a kind of editing). It affects the kinds and
> amount of materials that the library can present to its patrons. See
> ante, at 6—7, 10—11 (plurality opinion). And libraries often properly
> engage in the selection of materials, either as a matter of necessity
> (I.e., due to the scarcity of resources) or by design (I.e., in
> accordance with collection development policies). See, e.g., 201 F. Supp.
> 2d, at 408—409, 421, 462; ante, at 6—7, 11 (plurality opinion). To apply
> “strict scrutiny” to the “selection” of a library’s collection (whether
> carried out by public libraries themselves or by other community bodies
> with a traditional legal right to engage in that function) would
> unreasonably interfere with the discretion necessary to create, maintain,
> or select a library’s “collection” (broadly defined to include all the
> information the library makes available). Cf. Miami Herald Publishing Co.
> v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 256—258 (1974) (protecting newspaper’s
> exercise of editorial control and judgment). That is to say, “strict
> scrutiny” implies too limiting and rigid a test for me to believe that
> the First Amendment requires it in this context."
>
> He goes on to a limiting argument based on "editorial"
grounds. IMO, it's
> like restricting access to, say, a Supreme Court decision. Libraries and
> librarians do that properly all the time. The same is true of access
> limits on the Internet.
>
> Realistically, it will not change what libraries do in providing
> information. Anyone may ask that filters be "turned off".

And if someone really wants to view that material, they can also get their
own connection - and even pay for it themselves! Nothing in the library
filters is preventing the material from being available to the internet.
And I fail to see why the taxpayers should be forced to support someones
porn habit.

--
Jeff Shultz

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4