That means Superintendent Daniel Freeman in Kentucky was on the right track. (Especially see the comments from the superintendent and a number of authors.)
That means School Media Specialist Dee Venuto in New Jersey is on the wrong track and the school district might consider taking action against her.
But what it really means is the American Library Association [ALA] may have lost another arrow in its quiver of propaganda it uses to convince communities to keep children exposed to inappropriate material.
Consider that last case of Dee Venuto. The ALA supported her by advising her school superintendent that, among other things:
We encourage the administration to express respect and support for the judgment of librarians and media specialists in their selection of material based on professional expertise and standards, as well as users' constitutional right to obtain access to a broad range of materials and ideas, including those that some may find objectionable.
That is significantly diminished in light of what the 6th Circuit Court said. While the 6th Circuit does not have jurisdiction everywhere, the logic contained in the case can be applied with full knowledge it is legally sound.
When the ALA comes calling on your community like it did in New Jersey and does all over the United States, when the ALA makes false claims of constitutional support for why school superintendents must "respect and support ... the judgment of librarians and media specialists," you'll know ahead of time it is a false claim. Politely tell the ALA, as Daniel Freeman and others have done, thanks, but no thanks.
PS: Here's another case where the ALA attempted to ride roughshod over a community and lost: "Cert Denied: Vamos a Cuba; Cuban-Americans Lead Way for Districts to Back Parents Rights Against ALA/ACLU False Claims of Banning and Censorship." See also "It's Not Censorship, It's Parenting! -- Best Explanation Ever for What's Wrong With the American Library Association and its Effect on Public School Libraries."
NOTE ADDED TODAY, 2PM:
I wrote this post at 2AM and may not have been clear. Basically, the ALA advises communities that they have to accept what the teachers/librarians say as if the First Amendment requires schools to cede control to ALA acolytes. The Court, on the other hand, says the school system tells the teacher/librarian what's what and not the other way around. The ALA says anything goes, but the courts and common sense say otherwise. Local communities need to decide whether to respect precedent and common sense or to accept the ALA's anything-goes attitude when the ALA intervenes in local concerns. Choose wisely.
NOTE ADDED 2 MARCH 2011:
Evans-Marshall v. Board of Education has come under direct attack from self-described liberal NYU Professor Jonathan Zimmerman who has called for teachers unions to seek to use the collective bargaining process to overcome this case, the courts generally, and local school control. See:
"Teachers Need Collective Bargaining to Override Courts and Local Boards So School Children May Access Material Otherwise Unfit For School Curricula, Says NYU Professor Jonathan Zimmerman"