Thank you Laura, for writing up the group discussion post on
the ethical scenario assignment. I will
check back in on Tuesday evening to read the post. Are contributions welcome? I felt like I did not contribute enough to
tonight's conversation. Therefore, I
have written a brief response to one of the issues address in tonight’s group:
I have never
worked in a library before. Therefore, I
am unfamiliar with how policy issues are decided, and how policy decisions are
made in relation to books of a sexual nature.
I know a little about how case law interpretation works in the legal
system though. I tend go with the “original
intent” approach, not to case law, but to understanding how to apply the
meaning of a word. The meaning of a
word, I believe, should be applied as intended by the original historical
context in which it originated. “Original intent” has a similar meaning: a law should be interpreted based on what was
intended by the creator. I think that the
application of precedents in the legal system is very similar to the
interpretation of vocabulary in general.
They are both heavily based on how strictly or loosely the meaning of
the law/word is interpreted.
Laws, like words in
general, can be interpreted as having various subtle meanings dependent upon
the original context in which the law/word was , which reflects the meaning
intended by the creator. Therefore, the act of applying “orginalism” to case
law is very similar to applying the strict meaning of a word, as defined by a
well established and trusted encyclopedia or dictionary. However, Wikipedia is generally not a good
choice because of its wiki nature—it is too unreliable.
When “originalism”
is used in the interpretation of a law, the accepted understanding of the law,
established by the case and therefore the precedent set, is understood within
the context of the time in which the case was written and, therefore, is based
on what was intended by the creator of the law.
“Originalism” pertains, to how a U.S. Supreme Court Justices interpret
the laws purported by the U.S. Constitution.
I think that, in general, one may want to use the 1st or second
definition of a word offered. That
meaning, I believe, generally comes very close to representing the original meaning
of how the word was intended be understood, based the historical period
(context) in which it was defined.
In my opinion,
society has evolved, but meanings, particularly those of words, have changed
very little. Therefore, I think that strict
interpretation of the meaning of a word is the correct way to decide what the
accepted meaning of "explicit" or "pornography" really is. Generally the accepted meaning of a word in
society pretty accurately reflects the accepted meaning of that word by the
legal system. This congruence of meaning
is important and can have important consequences.
Ultimately,
regardless of what ALA's guidelines say about ethical issues related to the
amount of exposure to "explicit" reading materials high school students
should be allowed to be exposed to, ALA does not make the final decision. The choice is ethical and deals with a rather
controversial issue, which is viewed by many as a legal matter, and therefore
more appropriately addressed and decided by the court system. Many children have parents who are quite
conservative and, therefore, would feel uncomfortable with a book with any
sexual connotations at all.
In addition to considering what ALA has to
say on the issue, a legal perspective, I believe, should also be applied. I
think, therefore, it is important to consider the pertinent legal issues which
may apply, when deciding how to develop policies which support the exposure of
high school students to books, which contain subject matter of a sexual nature. The
book choice could be challenged by a parent or even a student because of its
sexual nature. A case could very easily
be brought to court on the issue.
Backing up the
way the definition has been interpreted, when the policy was written, is very
important in the perception of how valid the definition chosen for the word is,
and therefore, how valid the policy created supports the exposure of high
school students to reading materials of a sexual nature.
Use of a strict interpretation of the word’s definition demonstrates and
supports the logic of the argument made in favor of exposing a high school
student to a book of a sexual nature.
When an argument can be presented in a court room as being logical and
based on some established and accepted interpretation, the high school media
will have a much better chance of defending the case against them.
No comments:
Post a Comment