Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think this is a point that is not often taken into consideration. The First Amendment states:
Quote:
Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press....
I went into a Barnes & Noble yesterday to shop. I picked up a couple of biographies of Dwight David Eisenhower that I wanted to read. As I checked out, the clerk urged me to sign up for a club card to get a discount. I wanted to tell the chirpy young clerk that I didn't want my reading selections going off to the IRS or FBI. Instead I just politely declined the club card, paid cash, and went on my way.
On October 25, 2001, Congress passed the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" (USA PATRIOT) Act. The act broadly expands law enforcement's surveillance and investigative powers, with Sections 214-216 applying to libraries and bookstores. How is SFPL responding to the USA PATRIOT Act?
The USA PATRIOT Act is law, and the Library will comply with it. However, both the Library Commission and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors have formally opposed the Act, including Sections 214-216. What are Sections 214-216 of the USA PATRIOT Act?
These sections of the Act give law enforcement agencies expanded authority to obtain Library records, secretly monitor electronic communications and prohibit libraries and librarians from informing users of such monitoring or information requests.
or the Lois Lerner/IRS demands for book lists from targeted groups...are these not antithetical to the spirit of the First Amendment? IRS wants you to share everything
If a government agency, acting under the aegis of Congress, can snoop into the reading material of an individual citizen, then freedom of speech has been abridged, and the US Constitution violated.
The large city library in a previous city I lived in stopped keeping long-time records of patron borrowing precisely because of this. They couldn't refuse to provide the data, so they stopped keeping the data. Library records *have* been sub peonaed under the Patriot Act.
I don't agree with wutitiz on much, but this is one of them. It's evil.
Actually, your concern would be more with the 4th amendment than the 1st.
If the government is secretly monitoring your reading habits, it would be potential privacy issue.
If they do something to prevent you from reading what you want, it would be a 1st amendment issue. More specifically, it would be violating the author's/publisher's 1st amendment protections to the right of free speech/press.
If the government is indeed spying on you and using the Patriot Act as cover, you would have to take them to court and challenge the law. Assuming you could prove your claims, and had the money to fight a protracted legal battle against an opponent with unlimited funds (the federal government), you would still need a court which will rule against the Patriot Act.
Let's say the impossible happens and you win the lawsuit. One of two things will happen:
1. The feds continue to invade your privacy and are just more discreet about it.
2. They stop monitoring your bookstore purchases and simply watch what you are reading using a satellite camera.
In this electronic age, they can find out anything about you if they really want to know.
Actually, I misspoke a bit. The issue isn't regular sub poenas, where a prosecutor goes through normal channels. They've always been able to examine library records, but the defendant has always been able to fight the sub poena. The issue is that under the Patriot Act, they don't have to let you know, and you don't have any right to challenge it.
All too sadly true. But there's no reason to roll over and make it easy for them.
Actually in any age "they can find out anything about you if they really want to know." is true.
The 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments weren't put there to protect people from government snooping on their email and search engine history, it was because back in 1789 the precise same concerns existed. The tools may have changed, but the purpose is the same.
That said you're right no reason to roll over and make it easy.
All too sadly true. But there's no reason to roll over and make it easy for them.
Absolutely, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. We should fight illegal invasions of privacy and make it as difficult as possible for such activities to take place.
It just helps keep one's blood pressure under control when they realize it is an uphill battle and the even a win is mostly symbolic.
We have the 4th amendment and look how much they get away with. I could only imagine how bad it would be if we didn't put up a fight.
Actually, your concern would be more with the 4th amendment than the 1st.
If the government is secretly monitoring your reading habits, it would be potential privacy issue.
If they do something to prevent you from reading what you want, it would be a 1st amendment issue. More specifically, it would be violating the author's/publisher's 1st amendment protections to the right of free speech/press.
If the government is indeed spying on you and using the Patriot Act as cover, you would have to take them to court and challenge the law. Assuming you could prove your claims, and had the money to fight a protracted legal battle against an opponent with unlimited funds (the federal government), you would still need a court which will rule against the Patriot Act.
Let's say the impossible happens and you win the lawsuit. One of two things will happen:
1. The feds continue to invade your privacy and are just more discreet about it.
2. They stop monitoring your bookstore purchases and simply watch what you are reading using a satellite camera.
In this electronic age, they can find out anything about you if they really want to know.
Maybe the more consequential concern at present is government regulation of encryption measures.
I would take a libertarian view of the right to privacy, but the Constitution has the pesky problem of not really containing a "right to privacy," per se. The 4th is the closest we come:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Is requiring libraries to share data about patrons an unreasonable search of "persons, houses, papers, and effects"? The records belong to the library, not to the patron. So we would have to rest on the library's right of protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The regulation of businesses (or government agencies) is different than entering your house to rifle through your things. It certainly "feels" off in the case of a library's borrowing records, but we don't have a problem with the SEC requiring businesses to submit financial statements for government scrutiny. Or, more on point, the IRS auditing a company's taxes by examining its invoices, which arguably raises exactly the same "privacy" concern.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
