The more likely Concerned Women tactic

sanamens writes “Seth Finkelstein thinks it’ll be lawsuits, but CWA lobbying for CIPA-clone statutes at the state/local level is where the smart money resides. If you were a censorware supporter, which would you choose, an expensive court case with an uncertain outcome or slam-dunk demagoguery?”

August 27, 2003 by Uncategorized 5

You may also like...

5 Responses

  1. Seth Finkelstein says:
    August 27, 2003 at 4:52 pm

    Censors can use both tactics 🙁
    I didn’t mean to imply they’re restricted to
    just one tactic! Certainly not.

    The strategic difference in tactics is that
    Minneapolis-style lawsuits can be brought by
    individuals or small groups, even if state-level
    CIPA laws aren’t passed.

    And the threat of Minneapolis-style lawsuits is
    used in order to make the interpretation of the
    CIPAish laws as broad as possible, and the
    limitations and exceptions in those laws be
    interpreted as minimally as possible.

    Reply
  2. Brian says:
    August 27, 2003 at 10:49 pm

    Mini-CIPAs
    Yes, we can expect heinous mini-CIPAs to be popping up all over. The most dangerous thing about the Supreme Court decision is that the plurality decreed — contrary to evidence and precedent — that libraries serve a very limited role and filtering is like book selection. This means that laws may be passed which specify that much more than illegal content be blocked; e.g., no test for obscenity needs to be met. “Because the role of public libraries is blah, blah, blah, libraries in this state shall prevent access to this, that, and the other.”

    Reply
  3. Walt says:
    August 28, 2003 at 1:12 am

    Re:Mini-CIPAs
    Brian,

    Funny, I don’t read the decision(s) quite that way. The “rest of the plurality” only went along with CIPA on the basis that anyone 17 or older could get censorware turned off by simple request, no questions asked. And the censorware required by CIPA is (a) purely images, and (b) applies only to three categories that should be defined by legal action.

    I believe the decisions leave all the room needed for ACLU and next year’s Mainstream Loudon groups to challenge either mini-CIPAs or any use of censorware that meets the desires of the “family” groups. At least I hope so.

    Reply
  4. sanamens says:
    August 28, 2003 at 6:09 pm

    Re:Mini-CIPAs
    What Brian is getting at is this: A majority of 5 justices expressly found the “public forum” doctrine inapplicable to public libraries. Even Stevens, in dissent, said that libraries themselves (though not the US gov’t.) could lawfully filter everything. Only Souter joined by Ginsburg stated that libraries could *not* lawfully filter everything. While Walt may be right, strictly speaking, about mini-CIPA’s, he misses Brian’s point: the CIPA decision has broader and potentially graver implications for library policy-making.

    Reply
  5. Walt says:
    August 28, 2003 at 7:49 pm

    Re:Mini-CIPAs
    (I’ll stop with this, since the story’s already rolled off the main page, but…)

    Yes, the CIPA decision could leave the way open for broader attempts.

    But as I read the arguments, there’s a strong sense that–at least for those 17 and over–any request to turn off censorware should be accepted immediately. I think that and other aspects of the decision would provide strong defenses against mini-CIPAs. Of course, lobbying to prevent mini-CIPAs in the first place is more important.

    (On the other hand, Brian’s been thinking about this stuff longer and probably more deeply than I have, so I’m perfectly willing to suggest that I may be missing a big danger here.)

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

LISNews Archives