So, I’ve been thinking about the recent smackdown that COPA received when the Supreme Court declined to review the case for it again. The District Court Judge, Lowell Reed, said “perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection,” which is an awesome expression of the bigger picture.
I’ve also been chewing on the reminders that I received in the Intellectual Freedom Manual about the relationship between democracy and majority and the Constitution and this is what I think: since COPA was passed by both the House and Senate, and signed by President Clinton, that would imply that this piece of legislation was supported by the people (as the legislative branch of government is supposed to represent) but struck down by the judicial branch (Defenders of the Constitution). Any high school student would probably yawn at this observation, but it occurs to me that this speaks directly to the issues I’ve been playing with lately. Librarians, in this case, supporting the decision of the judicial branch and opposing the assertions of the legislative, are in the position of opposing popular opinion (potentially) – sort of saving the populace from itself.
Now, we all know that it isn’t that simple. It’s not as though a national referendum was held on the issue of the Internet and the majority of Americans supported this particular iteration of the urge to protect their children. More likely, the oversimplified version of this solution: “we need to protect our children from porn” was what drew the support of a vocal minority, convincing a majority of legislators to support COPA. Still, it is interesting to me to see theory played out in the real world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I find the phrase "saving the populace from itself" to be interesting. I agree in your articulation of the difference between the legislative and judicial branches. But in this case, I don't know if the judicial branch is so much saving the populace from itself, as it is placing the responsibility on the people (parents and guardians) to know what their children are doing. It's the same thing that librarians would expect parents to do when their child wants to check out a book that would be deemed unsafe by the parent. As librarians, we are not the parent or guardian who makes the decision for a child and in the same way the government is not responsible to make the decision for the children either. (With a few obvious family services oriented exceptions.) If a parent wants to block certain sites and materials on the internet, it is their responsibility and ultimately their right. It is not the responsibility of the government, and that is what I interpreted the COPA decision to state.
I was happy that COPA got another smackdown, but I know that their are many groups that supported it in the name of family values. (See Dr. Laura's blog from 1999: http://www.drlaurablog.com/category/libraries/.) I know that trying to get COPA out again was a goal of the Bush administration before it closed. I have a feeling we haven't seen the last of it, even if it comes under a different name. Hopefully, our government's checks and balances will continually filter out this law.
Gretchen,
Yea, it's dicey, isn't it? Power to the people, but popular opinion is far from mine as my senator's is.
Abigail,
I like interesting phrases. Thanks for responding!
Rachel,
I hope it is a done deal, but I doubt it is, too. It seems like we get into the most trouble, policy-wise, when we see things as cut-and-dry. I think that might be one of Dr. Laura's extrra special specialties.
-Shellie
Shellie, it will be interesting to talk more about COPA in class tonight. There is a lot of alphabet soup when it comes to online decency legislation.
Post a Comment