Re: SPECIAL REPORT: Censorware in the Stacks

[Colin Rafferty <craffert@ml.com>]

David Honig writes:
> At 10:23 AM 12/22/97 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:

>> Mainstream Loudoun, a local group, and 11 other
>> plaintiffs are challenging Loudoun County's decision to
>> adopt one of the country's most iron-handed Internet
>> policies, The Netly News has learned....

>> The plaintiffs hope to persuade a federal judge that
>> X-Stop's overzealousness violates not just traditions of
>> intellectual freedom in libraries, but the First Amendment
>> as well....
 
> 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.

> 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:

I don't think I saw TM's analysis, since I am on fight-censorship, but I
don't see where there is any confusion.  Except in very limited
circumstances (National Security), the government cannot hire or fire a
contractor (or employee) based on unrelated speech.

> 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.

> But if the employer is the State, and does this, the First might be dragged
> in -confusing the issue,
> since the government acting as State is constrained (by the constitution)
> differently from the government
> acting as Employer (constrained by employment law).

Why is this confusing?  It is very simple to tell the difference between 
the State as employer and the State as censor.

A Public Library is allowed restrict Internet Access to its employees on 
the job, since it is acting as an employer.

A Public Library may not be allowed to restrict Internet Access to its
patrons (we will see how Loudoun turns out).

> Perhaps some critical of Tim's analysis think that when government is
> employer it can't censor its LAN?  Can't remove games from government owned
> PCs?  

> 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.

> When the government attempts to remove games, pictures, etc. from stores it
> is acting criminally.

This is correct.

Again, I don't see what is confusing about this.

-- 
Colin