6 ms·

You don't need to be a local resident to enter and enjoy a public library, only to remove things from one.

• bhupy 6y ago
  It depends on the library. I guess the real questions is: is it unconstitutional for there to be a public library that only allows entry top library card holders?
  • twblalock 6y ago
    What part of the constitution would make that illegal?
    • bhupy 6y ago
      The same part of the constitution that the ACLU thinks makes public parks for residents-only illegal.
  • ebg13 6y ago
    I've personally never met a public library that denied entry to non-residents. Got any references?
    • bhupy 6y ago
      That's not the question, though — we're talking about what the theoretical bounds of the Constitution are. The ACLU appears to be arguing that a local government restricting access to some municipal/public property on the basis of residency is a violation of the Federal constitution (which part of it?). If that's the case, then what's the limiting principle?
      • rmk 6y ago
        The complaint is here. You can read it to understand the basis of the filing: https://www.aclunc.org/sites/default/files/Final_Complaint_for_filing_0.pdf https://www.aclunc.org/sites/default/files/Final_Complaint_f... In a nutshell, the basis is: - Restricts right of travel, which is considered a fundamental right that has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the Supreme Courts of both the state and the country. - Restricts free speech: people are being barred from exercising political speech (or speech of any kind) inside the park. - Restricts freedom of assembly: Peaceful gatherings in the park to discuss these things are barred. Basically, the beef is with the ordinances that fine and enforcement that harasses people who will enter the park anyway. EDIT: There is another interesting basis: One of the plaintiffs is a black store owner (store located in Palo Alto), who pays taxes to the city (that presumably contribute to the upkeep of the park), but still can't enter the park, because she lives in Menlo Park, a neighboring town. So what is the basis for excluding her from the park? It seems to me that 'residents pay taxes but others do not' is not a valid argument for barring access to nonresidents, if you consider the plaintiff's complaint.
        • bhupy 6y ago
          Right, what limiting principle makes government restricted areas like Area 51 or even Federal/State/Local legislature floors not violate the “fundamental right to travel” and “speech of any kind”, that also renders resident-restricted public parks a violation of those same rights? Also, do the merits of the case change if the plaintiff was a white store owner? Why is their race relevant?
          • rmk 6y ago
            There are several plaintiffs of many races, including past residents of Palo Alto who have moved away. But one of the arguments being made in the complaint is that minorities are specifically affected. The NAACP is also either a party or helping minority plaintiffs file. Palo Alto is a neighbor of East Palo Alto, which is on the (less desirable) bay shore. There have been racist covenants and exclusionary policies applied towards colored people in the past in Palo Alto, resulting in Palo Alto becoming majority white and East Palo Alto becoming majority colored. All of this is known fact, and lends credence to the complaint. Personally, I think the case has merit even without the race aspect. But the race aspect certainly bolsters plaintiffs' arguments.
            • bhupy 6y ago
              The race aspect changes which part of the Constitution the ACLU thinks is being violated: namely the Fourteenth Amendment (with the disparate impact philosophy). If that’s what they win on, then it isn’t somehow the end of residency-restricted public parks writ large, it’s probably the end of residency restricted public parks near EPA.
  • mikestew 6y ago
    It depends on the library. It would helpful to be more specific or name some names. I've entered libraries across the U. S. having never once been asked for a card of any sort.
    • tidepod12 6y ago
      I've never seen it at city-owned libraries, but IME it's fairly common for state universities to require a student ID before entering their libraries, classroom buildings, and even sometimes before entering the campus at all. I know universities are somewhat of a different environment, but it does point out that restricting public access to publicly-funded property isn't as wildly farfetched and unacceptable as some other comments in this thread portray.
      • paxswill 6y ago
        On that note, if the university library in question is a Federal Depository Library (and in my experience must are), they need to make at least those materials available to the public.
        • bhupy 6y ago
          But what if it's a state/local library? Whatever article/amendment of the US Constitution proscribes restriction to local parks on the basis of residency would ostensibly also proscribe any public government institution from discriminating on the basis of residency.