http://www.cato.org/pubs/scr2003/publiclyfunded.pdf
In “A Missed Opportunity” (Cato Supreme Court Review, Sept 2003), Bob Corn-Revere offered a fresh (and highly readable) take on CIPA. Not only is his reasoning lucid and original, but for the first time since July, I felt a spark of hope on this issue. “The public forum doctrine, which originated as a way to preserve a ‘First Amendment easement’ for private speakers on public streets and sidewalks, is not well-suited to the task of analyzing restrictions imposed on public institutions that are designed for the purpose of disseminating information.”
Posted on this day, other years:
- Cleaning the Laptops - 2007
- Please comment, do! - 2006
- Thanks for Oprah: The Oprah Meme - 2004
Bookmark to:
Nice indeed.
I don’t think the CIPA saga has to be over at all. And one of my great frustrations is that the free-speech organizations have been so unwilling to counter the censorware company’s PR *policy* campaign.
The following is not directed at you, but I often want to say to various organizations: “Before rolling-over, could we at least TRY extensive campaign opposition? Just give it a *try*? Don’t let them control the political debate?”
But it doesn’t/won’t happen :-(.
This is indeed a good read . . . and I agree with Seth: it is frustrating that we have never managed an effective counter to the pro-filter propaganda–that was and is still the case.
Unfortunately, there is money to be made from promoting blocking software, and not only is there none to be made opposing it, now that ALA no longer has a focused effort in this area, it has gotten that much harder to participate in an advocacy effort on the professional front for librarians.
Will we now agree with the minority view as conveniently embraced by the Supreme Court, and decide that selection is indeed censorship?
Melora
canadian pharmacy
In your free time, visit some helpful info about clomid morning after pill