Headlines By Email
Get LISNews via email! Enter Your Email Address:
Navigation
User login
Recent comments
- Nice analysis 1 month 2 weeks ago
- Justifying the practice... 2 months 1 day ago
- Details 2 months 3 weeks ago
- Congrats on 20 years. 3 months 1 week ago
- Happy Brithday 3 months 1 week ago
- Happy birthday, LISNews! 3 months 2 weeks ago
- chapter 1-8 claims 10 months 1 week ago
- Not a novella? 1 year 1 week ago
- women of a certain age (sounds like a criticism right there...) 1 year 8 months ago
- Reading as a punishment 1 year 10 months ago
Recent blog posts
- Appreciating the ‘powerful good’ of the public library
- New Domain, New Blog
- A.I. as virtual research mediators
- Fed Life Working Without Pay
- Dismantling Utopia: How Information Ended the Soviet Union
- Cites & Insights December 2018 (18:9) available
- Cites & Insights 18:7 (October 2018) available
- Cites & Insights 18:6 (September 2018) available
- Apparently Alex Jones isn't totally silenced
- Cites & Insights 18.5 (August 2018) available
Board of Education v. Pico
Anonymous, there is a difference between ideas and vulgarity. Ideas might include homosexual marriage, the Earth being older than 6,000 years, communism, abortion, witchcraft, atheism, etc. Vulgarity might include certain descriptions of bestiality or sex, repeated use of curse words, etc. The key here is not me nor what I think. The key here is the 1982 Board of Education v. Pico case. It was so obvious that pervasively vulgar material can be removed forthwith that the parties even stipulated to that, and the ALA was heavily involved in that case. I suggest reading the Pico case as what I infer from your question is that you are trying to convince others that no one is ever in a position to judge so no book can ever be removed, and that view would improperly obviate the Pico case:
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/457/853.html