I saw the following information posted on another list. If this is true,
what are we as librarians going to do about it? It seems to me that we
have an opportunity here to take a stand for intellectual freedom.
-- Loren Mendelsohn
==========================Text follows==========================
------------ ORIGINAL ATTACHMENT --------
SENT 07-09-94 FROM SMTPGATE (dgard@netcom.com)
SUPREME COURT BULLETIN
The United States Supreme Court today handed down an important decision
in the area of civil liberties.
The decision interprets the Second Amendment, which reads as follows:
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be
infringed."
In a well reasoned opinion, Ruth Bader Ginsberg ruled that a federal
law requiring a 15 day waiting period for the purchase of books was
constitutional, and that companion parts of the bill, banning the
manufacture and sale of inexpensive paperback books, as well as a
ban on possession of an electronic copy of a book (which could be
used to facilitate copyright violation by fully automatic duplication
over electonic bulletin boards) passes constitutional muster.
In a logical tour-de-force, Ms. Ginzberg reasoned that the clause "A
well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free
state" made it clear that "the intent of the amendment was merely to
prevent the federal government from interfering with the purchase and
distribution of books by public schools and universities." The amendment
was never intended to convey upon individuals an unfettered right
to own books.
Similary, the use of the collective term "People", when refering to "the
right of the People" makes it clear that the Second Amendment creates
a collective right that can be exercised by the whole people, through
the schools, and was not intended to create any rights on the part
of individuals to own books.
In her words, "If the framers had meant to create a right of individuals
to purchase or keep books, then they would have used the term "person"
or "individual" and not "people".
Justice Ginsberg noted that she was following numerous earlier, lower
court decisions in arriving at this conclusion, noting that the
government need only show that it has a "significant interest" in
regulating the sale or possession of books, and that it need not
show a compelling interest. Thus, a governmental interest in ensuring
that dangerous books do not fall into impressionable or immature hands
is enough.
========================End of text=======================
==================================================================
Loren D. Mendelsohn Chief of Public Services
Cohen Library City College of New York
Convent Avenue at 138th Street New York, New York 10031
Internet: LDMCC@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU Voice: (212) 650-7267
Bitnet: LDMCC@CUNYVM FAX: (212) 650-7604
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST