APPEALS COURT UPHOLDS EVICTION OF BAREFOOT READER

A United States Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the decision of a lower court in the case of a man evicted from the Columbus Metropolitan Library for going barefoot. The lower court ruled that the Metropolitan Library's shoe policy did not violate the constitutional rights of Robert Neinast.

A quick description of the case does not adequately convey the extent of the litigation involved. Robert Neinast was first told he needed shoes in 1997 and on several subsequent occasions. Mr. Neinast then filed complaints and amended complaints in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, the US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio and the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. To provide additional overview, the following paragraph was gleaned from the court documents.

Neinast claims that the Board's enforcement of the requirement that patrons of the Library wear shoes deprived him of his right to receive information under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court assumed that Neinast had a First Amendment right of access to the Library, but rejected his claim, finding the Board's requirement that patrons of the Library wear shoes to be "a valid, content-neutral regulation that promotes communication of the written word in a safe and sanitary condition." The district court concluded that "to the extent that it limits Plaintiff's right of access to speech, the Library's shoe regulation satisfies this intermediate scrutiny." Neinast now argues that the presence of feces, semen, blood, and broken glass in or around the library system, as established by incident reports, fails to represent any danger to barefooted patrons. Neinast asserts that "the shoe policy is substantially broader than necessary, even if one assumes that the Library's incidents constitute hazards to barefooted persons." Neinast also claims that the Board's claim of a substantial governmental interest in public safety represents "an expansion of the police power beyond its traditional boundaries."

To have three different court systems devote limited time and resources to this case is ridiculous. If a person walks into a library and is told "Go put some shoes on," that should be the end of it. The case is frivolous and an example of many cases that regularly clog the court system. I have an idea. Why not have the loser pay the winner's legal bills? Mr. Neinast might not have pursued the case if he had a large legal bill to contemplate.

Of note is that Mr. Neinast appears to be an idiot. His statement that "the presence of feces, semen, blood, and broken glass in or around the library system, as established by incident reports, fails to represent any danger to barefooted patrons" is ludicrous.

Also of note is that there is a rumor of a policy memo being circulated by the librarians that indicated they would allow barefoot patrons to use the library, but only under circumstances whereby they could be assured the level of abject stupidity of the patron would be lessened. Though it was not implemented, the policy most likely would not have applied to Mr. Neinast.