Mitchell argued the First Amendment shouldn't apply to public library book removal decisions. The appeals court also heard the Mississippi mail voting case.
The government “has no constitutional obligation to provide libraries,”
Or stripes on the road, air traffic control, public schools, flood water management, national parks. Governmental activities may have only a vague or null genesis in the constitution. That doesn’t mean that we should dispense with them or their proper management at the whim of individuals with ideological agendas.
They're more concerned with public schools than public libraries right now, which would make sense if you want a fascist makeover of the country; you have to eliminate or co-opt public education, and they're working on doing both.
Why would they? Carefully curated public libraries which only offer "high-quality literature" like Tucker Carlson autobiographies and Trump University textbooks which provide misinformation are far better than offering no reading materials and taking the risk that bored people pick up reading material that offer a balanced and reasonable point of view.
My first thought was that newspapers don't have consitutional rights to exist either. But I see this issue revolves around "government speech." Can you go more into this doctrine, as it might apply to ACTIONS by a library, or point me to a place where you have done so, if I missed it?
I can see that what Mitchell says could apply to a community's decision to stop funding a library entirely. But once funded, it does seem it has an obligation to treat all of its patrons equally.
Is there any way to sue the library board on grounds of discrimination? I can understand not interfering with normal "library curation"--the need to pare a collection to make way for new. And I believe pattern and practice discrimination now gets short shrift, so simply removing all books about, say, gay kids, would, without more, be considered "normal" in the insane world we live in.
But these removals were in RESPONSE to objections based on discriminatory intent. That should make a difference. It is heeding one group to the detriment of another.
Does the "government speech" doctrine allow a government body to ignore discrimination laws? This would also apply to all that legislation removing words from the statutes that part but not all of the constituents find objectionable.
As to discrimination, that would be a different lawsuit altogether, and it would, as you note, be a difficult one to make. That's, in part, why these cases are brought as First Amendment cases — relating to the right to receive information. That's Campbell, in the context of the Fifth Circuit.
As to government speech, that was Mitchell's argument in seeking to overturn Campbell — not the plaintiffs' argument. We don't have a decision and likely won't for some time, so I explained government speech just briefly in the story — but, if you want to look further, I provided links to all of the key relevant decisions, both in the Fifth Circuit and at the Supreme Court.
"In United States constitutional law, the police power is the capacity of the states and the federal government to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants.[1] Police power is defined in each jurisdiction by the legislative body, which determines the public purposes that need to be served by legislation.[2] Under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people. As a result, the police power is primarily concentrated within state governments, while the federal government possesses it in limited contexts where it has an express power, such as over conduct occurring within the territories of the United States and activities related to interstate commerce.
Police power is exercised by the legislative and executive branches of the various states through the enactment and enforcement of laws and regulations. States have the power to compel obedience to these laws through whatever measures they see fit, provided these measures do not infringe upon any of the rights protected by the United States Constitution or their own state constitutions and are not unreasonably arbitrary or oppressive. Methods of enforcement can include legal sanctions and physical means. Controversies over the exercise of state police power can arise when exercise by state authorities conflicts with individual rights and freedoms."
The government “has no constitutional obligation to provide libraries,”
Or stripes on the road, air traffic control, public schools, flood water management, national parks. Governmental activities may have only a vague or null genesis in the constitution. That doesn’t mean that we should dispense with them or their proper management at the whim of individuals with ideological agendas.
That will be the fascists' next crusade, to get rid of public libraries altogether.
Isn't that where this is ultimately headed? They haven't been shy about their goals.
They're more concerned with public schools than public libraries right now, which would make sense if you want a fascist makeover of the country; you have to eliminate or co-opt public education, and they're working on doing both.
That and more and for some time. "'Back to 1900' is a serviceable summation of the conservatives' goal." - George Will, January 2, 1995.
Why would they? Carefully curated public libraries which only offer "high-quality literature" like Tucker Carlson autobiographies and Trump University textbooks which provide misinformation are far better than offering no reading materials and taking the risk that bored people pick up reading material that offer a balanced and reasonable point of view.
These people seriously want to turn us into Afghanistan. The Christian Taliban- if they get their way this country will be an ignorant wasteland.
My first thought was that newspapers don't have consitutional rights to exist either. But I see this issue revolves around "government speech." Can you go more into this doctrine, as it might apply to ACTIONS by a library, or point me to a place where you have done so, if I missed it?
I can see that what Mitchell says could apply to a community's decision to stop funding a library entirely. But once funded, it does seem it has an obligation to treat all of its patrons equally.
Is there any way to sue the library board on grounds of discrimination? I can understand not interfering with normal "library curation"--the need to pare a collection to make way for new. And I believe pattern and practice discrimination now gets short shrift, so simply removing all books about, say, gay kids, would, without more, be considered "normal" in the insane world we live in.
But these removals were in RESPONSE to objections based on discriminatory intent. That should make a difference. It is heeding one group to the detriment of another.
Does the "government speech" doctrine allow a government body to ignore discrimination laws? This would also apply to all that legislation removing words from the statutes that part but not all of the constituents find objectionable.
As to discrimination, that would be a different lawsuit altogether, and it would, as you note, be a difficult one to make. That's, in part, why these cases are brought as First Amendment cases — relating to the right to receive information. That's Campbell, in the context of the Fifth Circuit.
As to government speech, that was Mitchell's argument in seeking to overturn Campbell — not the plaintiffs' argument. We don't have a decision and likely won't for some time, so I explained government speech just briefly in the story — but, if you want to look further, I provided links to all of the key relevant decisions, both in the Fifth Circuit and at the Supreme Court.
"In United States constitutional law, the police power is the capacity of the states and the federal government to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants.[1] Police power is defined in each jurisdiction by the legislative body, which determines the public purposes that need to be served by legislation.[2] Under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people. As a result, the police power is primarily concentrated within state governments, while the federal government possesses it in limited contexts where it has an express power, such as over conduct occurring within the territories of the United States and activities related to interstate commerce.
Police power is exercised by the legislative and executive branches of the various states through the enactment and enforcement of laws and regulations. States have the power to compel obedience to these laws through whatever measures they see fit, provided these measures do not infringe upon any of the rights protected by the United States Constitution or their own state constitutions and are not unreasonably arbitrary or oppressive. Methods of enforcement can include legal sanctions and physical means. Controversies over the exercise of state police power can arise when exercise by state authorities conflicts with individual rights and freedoms."
Hi! Not sure who you are, but, let's not just copy-and-paste Wikipedia into a comments section. Say something!
I believe it’s called voting.