human
Vast Democratic Forum
gpt
Librarians should have the discretion to decide that the library is committed to intellectual inquiry, not to the satisfaction of the full range of human desires. ). Thus, a public library's decision to use the last $100 of its budget to purchase the complete works of Shakespeare even though more of its patrons would prefer the library to use the same amount to purchase the complete works of John Grisham, is not, in our view, subject to strict scrutiny. Cf. NEA v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569 (1998) (subjecting only to rational basis review the government's decision to award NEA grants on the basis of, inter alia, artistic excellence). Nonetheless, we disagree with the government's argument that public libraries' use of Internet filters is no different, for First Amendment purposes, from the editorial discretion that they exercise when they choose to acquire certain books on the basis of librarians' evaluation of their quality. The central difference, in our view, is that by providing patrons with even filtered Internet access, the library permits patrons to receive speech on a virtually unlimited number of topics, from a virtually unlimited number of speakers, without attempting to restrict patrons' access to speech that the library, in the exercise of its professional judgment, determines to be particularly valuable. Cf. Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 834 (1995) (applying strict scrutiny to viewpoint-based restrictions where the state
human
In the case of television broadcasting, . . . broad rights of access for outside speakers would be antithetical, as a general rule, to the discretion that stations and their editorial staff must exercise to fulfill their journalistic purpose and statutory obligations. ); Finley, 524 U.S. at 586 (
gpt
The NEA's mandate is to make esthetic judgments, and the inherently content-based 'excellence' threshold for NEA support sets it apart from the subsidy at issue in Rosenberger – which was available to all student organizations that were 'related to the educational purpose of the University . . . .' ) (quoting Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 824); see also Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, 473 U.S. 788, 804 (1985) (
human
The Government's consistent policy has been to limit participation in the [Combined Federal Campaign] to 'appropriate' voluntary agencies and to require agencies seeking admission to obtain permission from federal and local Campaign officials. . . . [T]here is no evidence suggesting that the granting of the requisite permission is merely ministerial.