New York Times on wait for library censorware court decision
The New York Times recently had an article on upcoming Supreme Court decisions. Mandatory library censorware (CIPA) was mentioned.
The portion below is being posted in some places:
Of the 11 cases argued in February, only one is undecided and only Chief Justice Rehnquist has not written a majority opinion. The case, United States v. American Library Association, raises the First Amendment question of whether the government can require public libraries to install antipornography filters restricting Internet access.
If Chief Justice Rehnquist is in fact writing the majority opinion, there is little doubt that the court will uphold the law, the Children's Internet Protection Act.
With the following portion omitted:
On the other hand, he is one of the court's fastest writers, raising the question of why the decision in what is now the term's oldest undecided case is taking so long. One possibility is that there are many separate opinions, both concurring and dissenting. Perhaps he started out writing a majority opinion but lost the majority along the way.
Amusingly, when I posted that second part, someone responded, "Dream on, loser."
By Seth Finkelstein | posted in censorware , legal | on June 20, 2003 11:58 PM (Infothought permalink) | Followups
