NYT Opposes Mandatory Censorware

The NYT took a principled stand yesterday and urged President Clinton to veto any appropriations bill that makes censorware mandatory in schools and libraries. I hope he listens. It would take real guts for Clinton to make this a reason to veto an entire spending bill -- his opponents would probably say he was "shutting down the government to keep porn in schools." But if he's thinking about his legacy, he should remember that in 20 years everyone, not just geeks, librarians and high school students, will know how rotten censorware is.

What about the money?

[funkman]

I believe when a part of a law is marked as unconstitutional, the entire law is unconstitutional. Would that mean that the spending bill would need redrafted? What if the money was partially spent? (Reality check: all the money would be spent by the time it makes its way through the courts). But what happens to the money?

Catch 22

[_LORAX_]

In 20 years there is another much more disturbing possibility. If censorware is installed everywhere, and there is little or no accoutability....

How will people ever know what they are missing?

Re:What about the money?

[J'raxis]

I believe when a part of a law is marked as unconstitutional, the entire law is unconstitutional.

Most bills have a clause that says if any part of the bill is determined invalid, it doesn't necessarily affect the rest of the bill. Such as this example from the recent Massachusetts ballot questions [state.ma.us]:

The provisions of this law are severable, and if any clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this chapter, or an application thereof, shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder thereof but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, section or application adjudged invalid.

I am the Raxis.

Re:What about the money?

[bmasel]

I believe when a part of a law is marked as unconstitutional, the entire law is unconstitutional.

Wrong.

Re:Catch 22

[Siqnal 11]

Yeah right. There will always be people like Malda who to stand up to The Man & continue to distribute information to the masses.

--

Re: 19 year olds in public libraries

[Yossi]

I'm not sure that anyone has the right to down load porn whereever they want. No one can stop them if they want it but no one has to allow it either--there is nothing to compell a library to allow porn on thier computers.

Would you claim that a Library must carry Pornographic magazines in order to not violate a 19 yr. olds right to see them as well?

I do have some reservations though, over time some books have been called pornographic, who makes those standards etc... is never a pretty topic. The point is that there is a slippery slope once we start banning where do we stop.

On the other hand I've seen first hand how the library in my university was turned into a virtual red light distirct.

Finally!

[evanbd]

I thought it was just us geeks complaining and getting ignored. This is one of the first things in the YRO box in a while that I didn't find downright depressing. It's great that the NYT chooses to help with this. Hopefully this is a step in the direction of noticing that these things are BAD, be they effective or not.

Maybe they have a different constitution?

[www.sorehands.com]

I thought most copies of the constitution included the first amendment.

What is the point of free speech, if there are mechanisms put into place to block people from reading the free speech.

Re:These aren't people

[www.sorehands.com]

That argument fails when you put censorware into a public library.

Some libraries will perit this to be removed, only after request identification. Providing identification may create an atmosphere of intimidation when reviewing these materials. Also in public schools, there are 18 and 19 year olds. What about their rights?