We have almost 60 computers here with Internet access. $40 a month is NOT going to cover that. We pay $100/mo for our T1 line access. That is considered cheap!
Fair enough. $100/month isn't so bad, although maintaining a network of 60 computers is probably costing you money.
We'd have to charge $208.34 (500,000 divided by 2400...average new patrons 200/mo X 12 months)for each new card just to hope to get close to the money we need for one year! Are you going to pay over $200 a year for a library card?
Wait a second. Your library spends $200 per patron. But the library isn't worth $200 per patron? It's really quite simple. You're spending too much money. Cut back. Or close the library. Not every town has to have a library. If you only have 2400 patrons you should probably just close and join up with a bigger library.
If you would like to cover our budget deficit or even pay for our filters, please feel free to send the $$$$!!
Unfortunately, as a federal taxpayer, I already have.
Our Internet access costs much more than $40/month.
Way to waste taxpayer money. Keep it up.
Why do you think it is ok that the Federal Govt gave us this money to start with...then later gives us strings attached to it??
I don't think it's OK. They shouldn't have ever given you the money in the first place.
Now you either want us to pay big bucks that we dont have to pay for filters or lose our Federal and state funding?
That's a nonsensical argument. You wouldn't lose all your funding. You would lose the e-rate discounts. By the way, the e-rate discounts are a percentage of the costs of internet access. If you cut out your internet access, you'll save more than you lose.
Why don't you give me some suggestions on how to replace over $500,000 in funding cuts for one year?
My guess is that you live in one of the rich communities that can afford to pay for Internet access in their library.
You guessed wrong. My community can't even afford a library. We're a member of a county-wide library system which probably can afford the $40/month for high speed internet access, though.
What about the poor communities that rely on this money for Internet access???
They'll have to either put up the $40/month themselves, get funding from the county or state, or get off the Internet. It's not the federal government's responsibility to provide Internet access.
It wasn't my6understanding that all funds would have to be paid back...it was my understanding that funding would discontinue if you were not CIPA compliant.
I was just relying on someone else's assertion. I don't know either way.
Yes, but unpopular with who? In the case of the DMCA, the Slashdot crowd?
Actually, no one's in jail because of the DMCA. I was think more along the lines of marijuana laws.
Pot smokers are not high on the public opinion scale. Hardly anyone cares if they go to jail. Why? Because THEY don't smoke pot.
I'd say the majority of people in the country favor decriminalization of marijuana. I'd say nearly a majority of people in the country have even smoked it, at one time or another.
I bet if enough people smoked out and public opinion of it improved then pot would become just as legal as alcohol.
I doubt it. I think it would stop be enforced upon the rich, similar to what is happening in California for cultivation or possession of large quantities, but the poor would continue to be jailed for it. In any case, I think we've gotten sufficiently off topic that I'm willing to agree to disagree on that one. Maybe there aren't people any people in jail for a crime most people don't agree with. But somehow it seems to me there are.
True, true...our difference lies in the fact that I don't think it's worth the fight.
Well, it's not like I'm willing to go to jail or anything to protect the right of people to view porn. But I am willing to put a little bit of effort into it. I think I'd even be willing to get fired over it, but that's just me. Freedom of speech is one of the most important freedoms in my book.
The constitution deals with what types of laws congress is allowed to be passed
No. The constitution is the supreme law of the land.
But when I volunteered to help this library out, surely you must understand that I had to abide by their rules regarding how they want things done.
Technically, you don't have to abide by rules which break the law. But realistically, yes, if you didn't follow their rules, you probably would have been asked to stop volunteering. Like I said, I don't blame you for this. It's not like I myself follow every little law even when my employer is asking me not to. After all, if my fire chief asked me to go a few miles per hour over the speed limit when responding to a call in my personal vehicle, I'd do so even though it's technically illegal. So I'm not going to condemn you for breaking the law. That'd be hypocritical of me.
Public opinion will trump the law, every time. Even the constitution.
There are a lot of people in jail right now for breaking unpopular laws who would disagree with that. Public opinion will sometimes trump the law, but not always. Hell, sometimes money trumps public opinion and the law. That goes back to why I say that I don't condemn you for breaking the law. Sometimes we pretty much have to break the law. Other times we can and can still get away with it. This particular law just happens to be one which I agree with, and in certain situations (like viewing porn in a library) am willing to fight for (to some extent, anyway).
Eheheheh, well then perhaps Rutgers is more liberal than my community is. More power to the wheel chair guy:)
Yeah, clearly they are. It always pissed me off though cause I suspect if I were the one viewing the porn instead of some handicapped guy I would have been asked to stop.
But what you are talking about simply wouldn't fly at the place I was working at.
That's fine. If you're willing to break the law in order to keep your job, I'm not going to tell you you're a bad person for it. But I will actively fight against you if you ever try to do it to me.
An important point that I forgot to mention was that these computers are out in the open in the middle of the library.
That's not an important point, though. If the library has a problem with me engaging in my consitutional rights in the middle of the library, they can move the computers somewhere else, or get rid of the computers completely.
Yes, libraries are publicly funded and are supposed to serve the public interest. But like it or not the majority of the public does not believe that people should be surfing porn on library computers.
Well, like it or not, the majority of the public does not have the right to ignore the constitution. If enough of the public doesn't like the consitution, then they can pass a constitutional amendment.
You might have better luck in Amsterdam, but around here as long as people think the human body is a grotesque and horrible thing, you won't have any luck publicly surfing porn.
Unless of course you're in a wheelchair... Your comment reminds me of this handicapped person who used to view porn all the time from the Rutgers computer lab. Not once did I ever see anyone ask him to stop. Anyway, I can't comment on whether or not I'd win my case in your particular library. But I think I'd win the case in mine.
Here is the crux of our misunderstanding. When I said "If they raised a stink all we had to do was point to the police station right out the window.", by stink I mean yelling, screaming, etc.
I see. I thought you meant refusing to comply with your request. If you turn off the monitor, I'll just turn it back on and continue what I was doing.
You can't deny that the libary has a right to keep people from surfing "objectionable" sites if that is what they want.
Sure I can. If they are publically funded, then they must not impose restrictions on content so long as viewing that content is legal.
As I said before, if someone doesn't like it, they can surf on their own computer.
As I'll say right now, if the library doesn't like it, they can fund the library with private donations. Not with my tax money.
Personally, I've got no problem with pr0n. I doubt anyone here does. But there is also a time and a place for it.
What I'm researching porn for an academic paper? Isn't the library an appropriate place to do that research?
Good points, but it should be noted that the Supreme Court only decided a single thing in this decision: "The judgement [of the previous court] is reversed." The rest of the opinions were only decided by 4 (or fewer) justices, and are completely non-binding on future decisions. There was no majority opinion in this case, unlike for example in Roe v. Wade.
Trust me, your constitutional rights are not being violated.
Sorry, I don't trust you on that one.
Case in point: You can surf pr0n all day at home if you want.
The First Amendment (and Article I, Clause 6 of the New Jersey Constitution) does not restrict itself to the inside of my home.
I do not see "library" anywhere in the first amendment.
Well, it's actually the 14th Amendment that is being violated. "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" By forcing me to leave the public library that's exactly what the state is doing.
If you are going to start yelling and screaming about how your rights are being violated I'm sure the police will be happy to hear about it as they drag you out the door and into the lockup to cool off.
I never said anything about yelling and screaming. And no dragging or lockup will be necessary. I'll gladly call the police myself. When they get there I'll explain the situation, and if they order me to leave, I will do so peacefully and then initiate a lawsuit. There's no need for violence. If they drag me out the door I'll sue them for excessive use of force. If they lock me up I'll sue them for false arrest.
If you vote for Democrats, Republicans, or Greens, then you're voting to have remotely-accountable people in federal government make decisions about how your local library works.
Yep. It's called the lesser of many evils. I'm not willing to allow terrorists to enter this country without fear of being caught violating immigration laws just so that people in federal government can't make decisions about how my local library works...
Err, wait a second. No one in federal government is making a decision about how my local library works. My local library doesn't have any access controls on its computers. In fact, if it did so it would likely be in violation of my state constitution.
So what's the difference? If we have a democrat, republican, or green, my library doesn't get funded. If we have a libertarian, no one's library get's funded. I'm not the jealous type, I don't care about other people's libraries.
Without that funding they wouldn't have Internet access in any but the richest communities.
And this is the federal government's problem how?
If they opt out of the program they not only lose the funding, but they have to repay the fed for any and all funding they have received == bankrupcy.
bankruptcy? You exaggerate. Anyway, they shouldn't have taken the funding in the first place if they weren't going to follow the restrictions of the CIPA.
A better idea than libertarianism? I've got lots of better ideas. So do the Democratic, Republican, and Green parties. Some of those better ideas include having an FCC, having usury laws, having an environmental protection agency, having inheritance taxes, having laws against assault rifles, having gasoline taxes, having immigration laws, etc.
No, by agreeing to use the system, the library avoids losing all their federal funding.
That is untrue. CIPA compliance is only required for any school or library receive E-rate funds.
There was no new allocation of funds for libraries in CIPA.
Perhaps, so, but the E-rate funds didn't exist until around the same time time as the CIPA was passed.
The point of the lawsuit was an attempt to keep Congress from doing massive damage to our Public Libraries.
Please. Most public libraries are just not going to implement the systems, and will not receive the E-rate funds. That's not massive damage, especially considering the E-rate funds weren't even available until 1997.
If we saw pornography, we were to turn off the monitor and inform them that surfing pr0n was not allowed and if they continued they would have to get off the computer. If they raised a stink all we had to do was point to the police station right out the window.
Right, and I'd personally call up the police for you. This way the fact that you are asking me to leave can be documented so I can sue your ass for violating my consitutional rights.
You have the right to say and read anything you want, but that doesn't mean that the goverment has to provide the means to do it.
True, but once the government chooses to subsidize the right to say and read things, they have to do so in a way which is content-neutral.
You don't have a constitutional right to access the internet from a library.
True, but again, once the government provides access to the internet from a library, they must do so in a way which is content-neutral.
It's not the govenment's responsibility to provide this information to you, and it is their responsibility to protect kids.
No, it's the parent's responsibility to protect kids [from porn].
There may be a way around this ruling at the state level. Libraries act as a state governmental agency, which means they have to follow the state constitutions. If any libraries in New Jersey choose to follow this law (and receive the additional funding), they would be in violation of the New Jersey Constitution, Article I, Clause 6 (as it would be interpreted by our liberal Supreme Court justices). Since we would be relying solely on our State Constitution, the decision could not be appealed to the Supreme Court. If enough states did this, pressure could be placed on Congress to repeal the CIPA.
Fuck the ALA. If they don't like the opinion, they should put their money where their mouth is and mandate that all member libraries refuse to implement the filters.
In many cases, the librarians & aides don't have access to turn it off (the required login rights on the computer), or if they do, they don't have the password for the filter itself. And the person or people who can do it will require red tape be filed and probably aren't on-site when needed anyway.
OK, but that's not what the law forces to happen. Remember this case was about whether or not the law was facially unconsitutional. Just because it isn't facially unconstitutional doesn't mean that certain implementations can't be deemed unconstitutional.
Scalia is a literalist and this law violates the literal meaning of both the 1st and 10th Amendments.
Have you read the law? It does not ban anything, it simply funds certain libraries who agree to certain rules. It certainly does not violate the literal meaning of the 1st or 10th Amendment. The literal legal argument is that the law is unconstitutional because it induces the libraries to violate the 14th Amendment.
How likely is it that the staff of a small library are going to be able to handle that along with the rest of their workload? "Hire someone to help handle it"? With todays funding levels? Riiiight.
Actually, by agreeing to use the system, the library receives extra funding. That's the whole point of the lawsuit.
So it's up the librarian to determine what should and should not be filtered if a teen asks them?
Absolutely. Just like it's up to the librarian to determine which interlibrary book loans should and should not be accepted if a teen asks them.
If I wanted to visit a site that gave alternate views on history for a paper (like I once did back in the day. A paper on the Black Panthers, I used a museum of African American history in baltimore. They painted a rather different picture of the Panthers than what you'll read about.) would the librarian unblock it?
Maybe. Maybe not. But you don't have a constitutional right to force the librarian to unblock it.
Slashdot Mirror
We have almost 60 computers here with Internet access. $40 a month is NOT going to cover that. We pay $100/mo for our T1 line access. That is considered cheap!
Fair enough. $100/month isn't so bad, although maintaining a network of 60 computers is probably costing you money.
We'd have to charge $208.34 (500,000 divided by 2400...average new patrons 200/mo X 12 months)for each new card just to hope to get close to the money we need for one year! Are you going to pay over $200 a year for a library card?
Wait a second. Your library spends $200 per patron. But the library isn't worth $200 per patron? It's really quite simple. You're spending too much money. Cut back. Or close the library. Not every town has to have a library. If you only have 2400 patrons you should probably just close and join up with a bigger library.
If you would like to cover our budget deficit or even pay for our filters, please feel free to send the $$$$!!
Unfortunately, as a federal taxpayer, I already have.
Our Internet access costs much more than $40/month.
Way to waste taxpayer money. Keep it up.
Why do you think it is ok that the Federal Govt gave us this money to start with...then later gives us strings attached to it??
I don't think it's OK. They shouldn't have ever given you the money in the first place.
Now you either want us to pay big bucks that we dont have to pay for filters or lose our Federal and state funding?
That's a nonsensical argument. You wouldn't lose all your funding. You would lose the e-rate discounts. By the way, the e-rate discounts are a percentage of the costs of internet access. If you cut out your internet access, you'll save more than you lose.
Why don't you give me some suggestions on how to replace over $500,000 in funding cuts for one year?
Charge people for their library cards.
My guess is that you live in one of the rich communities that can afford to pay for Internet access in their library.
You guessed wrong. My community can't even afford a library. We're a member of a county-wide library system which probably can afford the $40/month for high speed internet access, though.
What about the poor communities that rely on this money for Internet access???
They'll have to either put up the $40/month themselves, get funding from the county or state, or get off the Internet. It's not the federal government's responsibility to provide Internet access.
It wasn't my6understanding that all funds would have to be paid back...it was my understanding that funding would discontinue if you were not CIPA compliant.
I was just relying on someone else's assertion. I don't know either way.
Yes, but unpopular with who? In the case of the DMCA, the Slashdot crowd?
Actually, no one's in jail because of the DMCA. I was think more along the lines of marijuana laws.
Pot smokers are not high on the public opinion scale. Hardly anyone cares if they go to jail. Why? Because THEY don't smoke pot.
I'd say the majority of people in the country favor decriminalization of marijuana. I'd say nearly a majority of people in the country have even smoked it, at one time or another.
I bet if enough people smoked out and public opinion of it improved then pot would become just as legal as alcohol.
I doubt it. I think it would stop be enforced upon the rich, similar to what is happening in California for cultivation or possession of large quantities, but the poor would continue to be jailed for it. In any case, I think we've gotten sufficiently off topic that I'm willing to agree to disagree on that one. Maybe there aren't people any people in jail for a crime most people don't agree with. But somehow it seems to me there are.
True, true...our difference lies in the fact that I don't think it's worth the fight.
Well, it's not like I'm willing to go to jail or anything to protect the right of people to view porn. But I am willing to put a little bit of effort into it. I think I'd even be willing to get fired over it, but that's just me. Freedom of speech is one of the most important freedoms in my book.
The constitution deals with what types of laws congress is allowed to be passed
No. The constitution is the supreme law of the land.
But when I volunteered to help this library out, surely you must understand that I had to abide by their rules regarding how they want things done.
Technically, you don't have to abide by rules which break the law. But realistically, yes, if you didn't follow their rules, you probably would have been asked to stop volunteering. Like I said, I don't blame you for this. It's not like I myself follow every little law even when my employer is asking me not to. After all, if my fire chief asked me to go a few miles per hour over the speed limit when responding to a call in my personal vehicle, I'd do so even though it's technically illegal. So I'm not going to condemn you for breaking the law. That'd be hypocritical of me.
Public opinion will trump the law, every time. Even the constitution.
There are a lot of people in jail right now for breaking unpopular laws who would disagree with that. Public opinion will sometimes trump the law, but not always. Hell, sometimes money trumps public opinion and the law. That goes back to why I say that I don't condemn you for breaking the law. Sometimes we pretty much have to break the law. Other times we can and can still get away with it. This particular law just happens to be one which I agree with, and in certain situations (like viewing porn in a library) am willing to fight for (to some extent, anyway).
Eheheheh, well then perhaps Rutgers is more liberal than my community is. More power to the wheel chair guy :)
Yeah, clearly they are. It always pissed me off though cause I suspect if I were the one viewing the porn instead of some handicapped guy I would have been asked to stop.
But what you are talking about simply wouldn't fly at the place I was working at.
That's fine. If you're willing to break the law in order to keep your job, I'm not going to tell you you're a bad person for it. But I will actively fight against you if you ever try to do it to me.
An important point that I forgot to mention was that these computers are out in the open in the middle of the library.
That's not an important point, though. If the library has a problem with me engaging in my consitutional rights in the middle of the library, they can move the computers somewhere else, or get rid of the computers completely.
Yes, libraries are publicly funded and are supposed to serve the public interest. But like it or not the majority of the public does not believe that people should be surfing porn on library computers.
Well, like it or not, the majority of the public does not have the right to ignore the constitution. If enough of the public doesn't like the consitution, then they can pass a constitutional amendment.
You might have better luck in Amsterdam, but around here as long as people think the human body is a grotesque and horrible thing, you won't have any luck publicly surfing porn.
Unless of course you're in a wheelchair... Your comment reminds me of this handicapped person who used to view porn all the time from the Rutgers computer lab. Not once did I ever see anyone ask him to stop. Anyway, I can't comment on whether or not I'd win my case in your particular library. But I think I'd win the case in mine.
Here is the crux of our misunderstanding. When I said "If they raised a stink all we had to do was point to the police station right out the window.", by stink I mean yelling, screaming, etc.
I see. I thought you meant refusing to comply with your request. If you turn off the monitor, I'll just turn it back on and continue what I was doing.
You can't deny that the libary has a right to keep people from surfing "objectionable" sites if that is what they want.
Sure I can. If they are publically funded, then they must not impose restrictions on content so long as viewing that content is legal.
As I said before, if someone doesn't like it, they can surf on their own computer.
As I'll say right now, if the library doesn't like it, they can fund the library with private donations. Not with my tax money.
Personally, I've got no problem with pr0n. I doubt anyone here does. But there is also a time and a place for it.
What I'm researching porn for an academic paper? Isn't the library an appropriate place to do that research?
Good points, but it should be noted that the Supreme Court only decided a single thing in this decision: "The judgement [of the previous court] is reversed." The rest of the opinions were only decided by 4 (or fewer) justices, and are completely non-binding on future decisions. There was no majority opinion in this case, unlike for example in Roe v. Wade.
Trust me, your constitutional rights are not being violated.
Sorry, I don't trust you on that one.
Case in point: You can surf pr0n all day at home if you want.
The First Amendment (and Article I, Clause 6 of the New Jersey Constitution) does not restrict itself to the inside of my home.
I do not see "library" anywhere in the first amendment.
Well, it's actually the 14th Amendment that is being violated. "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" By forcing me to leave the public library that's exactly what the state is doing.
If you are going to start yelling and screaming about how your rights are being violated I'm sure the police will be happy to hear about it as they drag you out the door and into the lockup to cool off.
I never said anything about yelling and screaming. And no dragging or lockup will be necessary. I'll gladly call the police myself. When they get there I'll explain the situation, and if they order me to leave, I will do so peacefully and then initiate a lawsuit. There's no need for violence. If they drag me out the door I'll sue them for excessive use of force. If they lock me up I'll sue them for false arrest.
If you vote for Democrats, Republicans, or Greens, then you're voting to have remotely-accountable people in federal government make decisions about how your local library works.
Yep. It's called the lesser of many evils. I'm not willing to allow terrorists to enter this country without fear of being caught violating immigration laws just so that people in federal government can't make decisions about how my local library works...
Err, wait a second. No one in federal government is making a decision about how my local library works. My local library doesn't have any access controls on its computers. In fact, if it did so it would likely be in violation of my state constitution.
So what's the difference? If we have a democrat, republican, or green, my library doesn't get funded. If we have a libertarian, no one's library get's funded. I'm not the jealous type, I don't care about other people's libraries.
Without that funding they wouldn't have Internet access in any but the richest communities.
And this is the federal government's problem how?
If they opt out of the program they not only lose the funding, but they have to repay the fed for any and all funding they have received == bankrupcy.
bankruptcy? You exaggerate. Anyway, they shouldn't have taken the funding in the first place if they weren't going to follow the restrictions of the CIPA.
A better idea than libertarianism? I've got lots of better ideas. So do the Democratic, Republican, and Green parties. Some of those better ideas include having an FCC, having usury laws, having an environmental protection agency, having inheritance taxes, having laws against assault rifles, having gasoline taxes, having immigration laws, etc.
No, by agreeing to use the system, the library avoids losing all their federal funding.
That is untrue. CIPA compliance is only required for any school or library receive E-rate funds.
There was no new allocation of funds for libraries in CIPA.
Perhaps, so, but the E-rate funds didn't exist until around the same time time as the CIPA was passed.
The point of the lawsuit was an attempt to keep Congress from doing massive damage to our Public Libraries.
Please. Most public libraries are just not going to implement the systems, and will not receive the E-rate funds. That's not massive damage, especially considering the E-rate funds weren't even available until 1997.
Should the GOVERNMNENT be the ones to legislate what the libraries do? No.
This law does not legislate what the libraries do. It provides funds contingent on them doing certain things.
If we saw pornography, we were to turn off the monitor and inform them that surfing pr0n was not allowed and if they continued they would have to get off the computer. If they raised a stink all we had to do was point to the police station right out the window.
Right, and I'd personally call up the police for you. This way the fact that you are asking me to leave can be documented so I can sue your ass for violating my consitutional rights.
Vote in the ones [lp.org] who say they will get the federal government out of your local community's concerns.
Damn, ya had me in agreement until that line.
The way I read it, you only need to implement filters if you receive "E-rate discounts." Are these discounts the only funds which libraries receive?
You have the right to say and read anything you want, but that doesn't mean that the goverment has to provide the means to do it.
True, but once the government chooses to subsidize the right to say and read things, they have to do so in a way which is content-neutral.
You don't have a constitutional right to access the internet from a library.
True, but again, once the government provides access to the internet from a library, they must do so in a way which is content-neutral.
It's not the govenment's responsibility to provide this information to you, and it is their responsibility to protect kids.
No, it's the parent's responsibility to protect kids [from porn].
There may be a way around this ruling at the state level. Libraries act as a state governmental agency, which means they have to follow the state constitutions. If any libraries in New Jersey choose to follow this law (and receive the additional funding), they would be in violation of the New Jersey Constitution, Article I, Clause 6 (as it would be interpreted by our liberal Supreme Court justices). Since we would be relying solely on our State Constitution, the decision could not be appealed to the Supreme Court. If enough states did this, pressure could be placed on Congress to repeal the CIPA.
It seems like that would be a valid solution for a library to implement and still receive federal funding. See, this law isn't so bad after all.
Fuck the ALA. If they don't like the opinion, they should put their money where their mouth is and mandate that all member libraries refuse to implement the filters.
Because asking a human can be embarassing.
If you want the rights of an adult, you have to act like one. Get over it.
In many cases, the librarians & aides don't have access to turn it off (the required login rights on the computer), or if they do, they don't have the password for the filter itself. And the person or people who can do it will require red tape be filed and probably aren't on-site when needed anyway.
OK, but that's not what the law forces to happen. Remember this case was about whether or not the law was facially unconsitutional. Just because it isn't facially unconstitutional doesn't mean that certain implementations can't be deemed unconstitutional.
Scalia is a literalist and this law violates the literal meaning of both the 1st and 10th Amendments.
Have you read the law? It does not ban anything, it simply funds certain libraries who agree to certain rules. It certainly does not violate the literal meaning of the 1st or 10th Amendment. The literal legal argument is that the law is unconstitutional because it induces the libraries to violate the 14th Amendment.
How likely is it that the staff of a small library are going to be able to handle that along with the rest of their workload? "Hire someone to help handle it"? With todays funding levels? Riiiight.
Actually, by agreeing to use the system, the library receives extra funding. That's the whole point of the lawsuit.
So it's up the librarian to determine what should and should not be filtered if a teen asks them?
Absolutely. Just like it's up to the librarian to determine which interlibrary book loans should and should not be accepted if a teen asks them.
If I wanted to visit a site that gave alternate views on history for a paper (like I once did back in the day. A paper on the Black Panthers, I used a museum of African American history in baltimore. They painted a rather different picture of the Panthers than what you'll read about.) would the librarian unblock it?
Maybe. Maybe not. But you don't have a constitutional right to force the librarian to unblock it.