This
case concerns the right of the School Board to remove certain books from public
school libraries.
What does the plurality opinion say? [notice the law of this case is probably Justice White’s opinion that since
there were material issues of fact, summary judgement was inappropriate –
Justice White expressly states that he is not willing to address the First
Amendment issues at this point]:
“We hold that local school boards
may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike
the ideas contained in those books. . . .”
(p. 1529)
Is this a case involving viewpoint suppression?
–
But note huge exception – books may be removed if the motive is
to eliminate due to “educational suitability" or vulgarity. (p.1528-1529)
Many of the school library books being challenged by parents today contain sexually explicit content (including cartoon depictions of boys and girls engaged in various sexual acts). How would Pico be argued in these cases?
Whose First Amendment rights are we
protecting here? Kurt Vonnegut’s? Langston Hughes's? Were they parties to this lawsuit?
The students “right to receive
information and ideas.” (p. 1528)
Was anyone preventing the students
from going to a bookstore to purchase these books or even to the City library
where presumably they were available?
No.
Suppose the School Board had decided
not to purchase the books in the first place for exactly the same reasons.
Page 1529: “As noted earlier,
nothing in our decision today affects in any way the discretion of a local
board to choose books to add to the libraries of their schools.”
Why is it okay to refuse to purchase
books the Board dislikes, but not to remove them once they have been purchased?
Is the right to receive denied any
more in the one case than the other?
If the school makes a mistake in its
purchasing, why can't it correct the mistake once it discovers it?
Suppose a University Art Museum purchases a collection of oil paintings by a great contemporary artist, one whose paintings often deal with contemporary social issues in a way that offends powerful groups in the local community. Perhaps his paintings are deemed to be offensive by the LGBT community because they express a view favoring traditional marriage. Under pressure from these powerful members of the community, the President of the University orders the museum director to remove the paintings from public display and hide them away in storage.
If patrons of the museum sue challenging the decision to remove the paintings from public view, do they have a claim under the plurality's reasoning in Pico?
No comments:
Post a Comment