Library Connection Kerfuffle
Since it first broke in August 2005, I have followed the general story arc of the skirmish between the Connecticut-based Library Connection consortium, the Government, and a National Security Letter demanding that the Library Connection turn over patron records to the FBI. A summary of the case and links to a long list of news stories and court documents can be found here. However, I had not studied the situation in depth until last week, when I saw that the American Civil Liberties Union posted several court documents from Doe [Library Connection} vs. Gonzalez that the government had kept tightly under wraps until this month, when the Supreme Court ordered them to be unsealed. They are beautiful. My two particular favorites are:
1) The infamous National Security Letter, received by Ken Sutton, the Systems and Telecommunications Manager for the Library Connection. After assuring Sutton that the First Amendment doesn't come into play, Special Agent Wolf instructs Sutton that he is prohibited by law from telling anyone about the NSL and must hand deliver all relevant patron records to the FBI himself. To his credit, Special Agent Wolf ends the letter on a slightly warmer note, informing Sutton that "Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated." Isn't that nice (but not nice enough for Library Connection and the ACLU to pay heed).
2) Justice Ginsburg's decision to keep the government's gag order on the Library Connection in place, even though the government itself accidentally revealed the LC's identity. Pay particular attention to the group of paragraphs beginning with the last sentence on page 5 of the ruling:
"Shortly after the court of appeals entered the stay, the parties learned that, through inadvertence, Doe's identity had been publicly available for several days on the District Court's Web site and on PACER, the electronic docket system run by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts [....] The parties also learned that the media had correctly reported Doe's identity on at least one occasion"
Nevertheless, Ginsburg decided to keep the gag order in place, even though "Doe seeks only to confirm its identity as the recipient of a NSL. It does not seek to disclose the contents of the NSL, nor does it seek to disclose the date on which it was received", and even though "Doe -- the only entity in a position to impart a first-hand account of its experience -- remains barred from revealing its identity, while others who obtained knowledge of Doe's identity -- when the cat was inadvertently let out of the bag -- may speak freely on that subject."
While I can understand the stated reasons behind Justice Ginsburg's decision (namely, that the case was currently being heard by another court), it still seems somewhat, well, stupid, as does following rulings also upholding the gag order. Especially since Justice Ginsburg notes on page 4 that when the case was in District Court the presiding judge asked "whether there are in fact other pieces of information that, when combined with Doe's identity, would hinder the investigation. Counsel could not so confirm." This means, essentially, that the Government insisted on the gag order to wield its authority and not because the investigation would be harmed if the Library Connection said "yes, we did in fact receive a national security letter." It is interesting to note that the Government dropped the whole case after the Patriot Act was reauthorized.
People You've Never Heard of Protecting You From Dirty Hotel Movies
Not being a connoisseur of hotel pornography myself, I was blissfully unaware that by allowing guests access to pornographic media (videos, TV channels, etc), the hotel industry is directly contributing to the downfall of American Family Values. According to a story posted on CNN.com ("Conservatives ask FBI to Investigate Hotel Porn"), a coalition of 13 conservative groups recently launched an advertising campaign with two objectives. First, the ads promote CleanHotels.com, a Web directory of porn-free hotels. Okay, no problem there.
Second and far more problematic purpose of the ad campaign is to get the FBI to investigate whether accessible pornography in hotels violates national and local obscenity laws. Wait a minute . . . whether the coalition likes it or not, child-free pornography is protected by that pesky First Amendment. In the CNN story, hotel representatives rightly point out that 1) people have the right to watch pornography, and 2) guests can choose not to watch pornographic media, and can even ask hotels to block access to that media in their rooms. Unless the hotel industry is strapping guests to their beds and forcing them to watch X-rated media, I don't really see the problem, try as the coalition might to alter my views with broad warnings about impending pornographic doom.
The CNN story highlights two of the coalition's main concerns about accessible pornography in hotels. The president of the Family Research Council, Tony Perkins, argues that when people have access to pornography they become desensitized -- the story doesn't explain just what people are becoming desensitized to, how such a process might occur, or why this is vastly more important for the FBI to investigate than, say, actual child pornography rings.
The coalition's second concern is, to me at least, far more dubious and far more entertaining. CNN's story includes a fascinating assertion by Phil Burress, "a self-described former porn addict who heads the Cincinnati-based Citizens for Community Values." The story explains:
"Though unable to cite specific cases, Burress contended that the availability of in-room porn is making hotels more dangerous.
"As more and more of these (hardcore) titles become available, we're going to have sexual abuse cases coming out of the hotels," he said. "Hotels are just as dangerous as environments around strip joints and porn stores."
I had assumed that when attempting to bypass the Bill of Rights you might want to provide proof that the Bill of Rights actually needs bypassing. But apparently I stand corrected.
Facts and the First Amendment. Who needs em'.
No comments:
Post a Comment