by J.R. Labbe
29 Jun 03
The highest court in the land decided last week that libraries can lose government funding if they don't make it harder for patrons to view constitutionally protected material.
Say what?
The Supremes ruled that the federal government -- translation: Congress -- can withhold money from libraries that choose not to install porn blocking computer programs. Attorneys for the libraries had argued -- rightfully -- that the law will turn their clients into censors. They lost anyway. The First Amendment be damned.
Only the naive would think that government hasn't been in the business of social engineering for a long, long time. One look at the tax code reveals that Congress thinks selected behaviors are good for society, so citizens are rewarded for participating in them. Home ownership. Tithing. Not growing certain crops. Growing children.
It also is clear that government has attempted to manipulate behavior by withholding funds from legal activities that it deems unseemly. Must we revisit the issue of National Endowment for the Arts funding and the Robert Mapplethorpe exhibit?
Grown people should not have to explain their reading interests to anyone, not even librarians. That much, the high court did recognize. Last week's decision instructs libraries that do install the software to be prepared to disable it 'without significant delay' upon the request of an adult user.
Unfortunately, adult users still have to go to a librarian to ask for access to the entire World Wide Web. How embarrassing.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said the Constitution 'does not guarantee the right to acquire information at a public library without any risk of embarrassment.'
Can't that logic be turned around? Is there a right that guarantees you'll never be offended by anything you read or see in a public library? Methinks not. Congress and a majority of Supremes, however, think otherwise. [Star-Telegram]
9:22:56 AM Google It! 
|
