cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1997-12-23 - Re: SPECIAL REPORT: Censorware in the Stacks

Header Data

From: berezina@qed.net (Paul Spirito)
To: David Honig <honig@otc.net>
Message Hash: 4bcefa0ae0d59765e4e3ed08719a6d747871390c09de8507f2e4ac77d9f9c4a7
Message ID: <34a33a61.43986305@smtp.email.msn.com>
Reply To: <3.0.5.32.19971222100447.007d28c0@otc.net>
UTC Datetime: 1997-12-23 04:33:54 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 12:33:54 +0800

Raw message

From: berezina@qed.net (Paul Spirito)
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 12:33:54 +0800
To: David Honig <honig@otc.net>
Subject: Re: SPECIAL REPORT: Censorware in the Stacks
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19971222100447.007d28c0@otc.net>
Message-ID: <34a33a61.43986305@smtp.email.msn.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On Mon, 22 Dec 1997 10:04:47 -0800, David Honig wrote:

>
>Note that if the library in question were not arm of the State,
>noone would have any First Amendment claim.
>
>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:

It's true that in the absence of public libraries this would not be an
issue; however, it is an example of the state acting as sovereign, not
employer. We're concerned with the right of patrons to access material, &
they are not state employees. The situation is analogous to a public park:
just because the state owns it, does that mean it can forbid, say, criticism
of the state in it? No, of course not, though it has broader discretion in
limiting the speech of public employees in the park, while on-duty.

Paul

"(pun intended, though unfunny)"

~Saint

Thread