If you live in Loudon County, Virginia, you have an undeniable,
fundamental, First Amendment right to use the personal computer at the
local library as a medium for viewing graphic depictions of your
favorite sexual fetish.
This according to U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, who struck down
the Loudon County Library Board Internet policy that required filtering
software on all public library computers. In his November 23rd ruling,
the judge assured sexual misfits and curious children alike that any
penchant for porn was to be supported by resources paid for with
taxpayer monies.
In the ongoing macroevolution of First Amendment meaning, Judge Brinkema
has discovered a new hominid. The genesis of this creature,
undoubtedly, dates back to the previous century, when the Fourteenth
Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states. From that point,
the legal environment of natural selection enabled judicial activists to
redefine the scope and intention of this First Guarantor of individual
liberty to such a point that James Madison, if he were alive today,
wouldn't recognize it from the lyrics to "Louie, Louie."
One of the notoriously carnivorous creations that has arisen from this
judicial Darwinism has earned its own buzz-phrase: "separation of church
and state." The speciation of this beast occured in the Supreme Court's
1947 decision, Everson v. Board of Education, in which it was summarily
decided that a single phrase contained in a letter written by Thomas
Jefferson should become an unemurated Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
But if "separation of church and state" represents the Neanderthal Man
of First Amendment jurisprudence, then Judge Brinkema's decision
represents Homo Erectus (pun intended). It's a distinct branch, of
course, but it's a cut from the same common ancestor: the distortion of
First Amendment intention to the point of absolute lunacy.
No doubt that the rights mafia is cheering. Libertarian extremists
might find a certain pleasure in noting that the services of the library
include a new partition: the advancement of carnal pleasure. Not only
can Loudon County residents visit their local library to research the
causes of Downs Syndrome, or further their knowledge concerning the
hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ, they can also take a few
moments to carefully examine the comeliness of Jenny McCarthy's
nipples. Perhaps the county libraries need to amend the signs posted
near the PC Terminals to read: "No food or drink allowed. Pants must
be kept buttoned at all times."
The People For The American Way, which fought the Loudon County policy,
claim that the blocking software which was used (X-Stop), also blocked
sites without questionable material (including a Beanie Babies site).
But that is nothing more than a red herring. PFAW never went on record
as stating a definite opposition to the transformation of a library
terminal into a peep show. The organization simply adopts a radical
anti-censorship approach, assuming that people's perversions should be
subsidized by the taxpayers. Additionally, the library board has stated
that requests to unblock non-questionable sites will be honored. Loudon
County didn't adopt the policy in an effort to mobilize a war against
Beanie Babies (although the merits of such an effort should be
considered separately).
Judge Brinkema has done again what so many judicial activists have done
over the years. He has caused the average American to scratch his head
and quizzically ask himself and his neighbors, "The Constitution
guarantees THIS?" It doesn't, but Constitutional reality or common
sense jurisprudence have never stopped highly partisan judges from
imposing amoralism on the American people. In their ongoing efforts to
continue to rewrite the Constitution, these activists forge new and
unusual laws, not from sound Constitutional interpretation, but more
apparently from their own disgruntled attitudes about the significant
lack of left-wing extremism currently accepted by the body politic.
It's rulings like this that should cause the judiciary to tremble for
its independence. While no one is going to deny the importance of
judicial independence, no one should condone flagrant activism on the
part of the bench which crafts "Constitutional" law from
extra-Constitutional principles. Gibbon points to the example of
Augustus in stating that the principles of a free Constitution are lost
when the executive nominates the legislators. However, isn't that
effectively what we see happening as a result of judicial activism? The
President appoints justices who frequently view the office as a
supra-legislature, and find law in the Constitution that was never
intended by the framers.
One has to wonder if the movement towards publicly funded access to
pornography will stop here. The libraries in Loudon County most
assuredly have a magazine collection. Will Judge Brinkema be coercing
the library board to stock the periodical racks with issues of
_Hustler_?
Ah, but perhaps that is a species that will evolve in a different epoch.