Porn is ok but safety of children is not.

[dread]

Its not a right. But its the equivalent of closing down libraries because you are uncomfortable with whats being read there. If you close off avenues of huge research potential because you are afraid of what a tiny minority of people might look at on a tiny minority of the internet, then I'm not quite sure you understand what freedom means.

So what you are saying is YOU PERSONALLY have no problem with a child molestor looking at child porn off YOUR tax dollar?

 

[Larkinn]

says you.

tax payers who don't want to pay for porn in public libraries, you know WE majority, might say otherwise.

I doubt it. There are enough 1st amendment advocates and people who are decent that would fight tooth and nail against shutting off access to information for the poor, because of what a tiny minority might do.

YOU keep bringing up fucking statues as if there is some ambiguous definition of Net porn. Shall I quote your stupid ass?

Theres not an ambigious definition?

Then what is that definition, Shogun? I'd like to hear what the bright line rule is. Last time you said it was nudity. If your going to stick with that idiocy, care to explain to me how the statute of David isn't nude?

 

[Larkinn]

So what you are saying is YOU PERSONALLY have no problem with a child molestor looking at child porn off YOUR tax dollar?

Ok...are you honestly this stupid, or are you just joking around?

 

[AllieBaba]

Its not a right. But its the equivalent of closing down libraries because you are uncomfortable with whats being read there. If you close off avenues of huge research potential because you are afraid of what a tiny minority of people might look at on a tiny minority of the internet, then I'm not quite sure you understand what freedom means.

I didn't say to close down the libraries. And there's a difference between not being comfortable with what's being read there, and providing people the opportunity to access illegal pornography. For one thing, if libraries allow porn in, you'll have all sorts of freaks hanging out with kids who go there after school. It's a safety issue.

Libraries are not obligated to provide the internet or pornography. If they provide internet service and they are too large to monitor the computer useage, then they should pay the extra dime and block pornography.

 

[Shogun]

Its not a right. But its the equivalent of closing down libraries because you are uncomfortable with whats being read there. If you close off avenues of huge research potential because you are afraid of what a tiny minority of people might look at on a tiny minority of the internet, then I'm not quite sure you understand what freedom means.

Supreme Court affirms use of computer filters in public libraries

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a legal balancing act, the Supreme Court has decided Congress is allowed to protect children from pornography on public library computers, a move the majority said does not infringe on the free speech rights of others.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/24/scotus.internetporn.library/index.html



fuck you.

deal with it. Accusing someone of not understanding what freedom means? Yea, thats probably not ironic as hell considering that YOU refuse to participate in your personal FREEDOM to jack off at home.

 

[mattskramer]

So what you are saying is YOU PERSONALLY have no problem with a child molestor looking at child porn off YOUR tax dollar?

There are many things that I don’t like people to look at with my tax dollar. I don't want people reading stuff that you like with my tax money. How does that grab you? Perhaps libraries should be privatized. I think that such would end the debate. Just as it is with public schools, some people think that it would be wrong to expose people to certain things with their tax dollars. Some people think that it would be wrong to expose people to other things.

 

[Larkinn]

I didn't say to close down the libraries. And there's a difference between not being comfortable with what's being read there, and providing people the opportunity to access illegal pornography.

I know you didn't say that. I'm saying its the equivalence of that. And pornography is legal, btw.

For one thing, if libraries allow porn in, you'll have all sorts of freaks hanging out with kids who go there after school. It's a safety issue.

Then put a cop on duty there.

Libraries are not obligated to provide the internet or pornography. If they provide internet service and they are too large to monitor the computer useage, then they should pay the extra dime and block pornography.

No, they aren't obligated to provide internet. But I think that its ridiculous to suggest that they actively not provide internet because of what a few might do. It is the worst kind of censorship.

 

[Shogun]

That's irrelevant since there are no "rights" to libraries either. However, when the GOVERNMENT provides such resources, there are first amendment issues that arise. The question then becomes, is it censorship to filter the internet which the library provides as it would be to censor books. And what is the appropriate standard? And who decides on the standard?

Looks like Scotus made this decision in 03.


Further, are Public Libraries FORCED to carry any particular book anyway? If they don't provide a copy of Lolita is this restricting your first amendment? What specific titles might trigger this infraction of the first amendment?


The libraries are not censoring anything but THEIR hardware terminals. The information is still available for masterbators everywhere in the comfort of their own home.

 

[manifold]

I know there is no bright line. Shogun seems to think that there is and its completely obvious whats porn and whats not.

I'm not sure that he does, necessarily, although I can certainly understand how his many posts on the topic seem to suggest it. While I would never attempt to speak for the curmudgeonly s.o.b., I interpret his rantings as essentially saying that the judgment calls to be made by whomever is empowered to do so, aren't exactly difficult, nor would there be a material amount of disparity between what one reasonable person identifies as filter-worthy porn versus another. And If I'm interpretting him correctly, I'm in complete agreement.

 

[Shogun]

Difference between opt-in and opt-out, genius.

funny that you say anything about distinguishing anything, dude.


Again, don't puss out on me now, dude.. SHOULD TRANVESTITE MONTHLY sit next to the good housekeeping on the fucking public library mag rack?

 

[AllieBaba]

Ok, that does it. I have to look into how libraries are funded and who makes the decisions about what is available.

I imagine a percentage of their money comes from federal and state taxes, but a larger portion comes from community sources. I know very well that libraries are vastly different from one another. I've been in libraries that don't have internet access, I've been in libraries that certainly don't carry certain materials because they choose not to. I know libraries can and do censor what they provide to their patrons, based upon the decisions of .... somebody. A library board, in most cases.

I know libraries are not in any way obligated to provide any material asked for by patrons on demand. I know they are not violating anybody's rights if they do not provide any and all published materials, including the internet.

So what the hell is the argument? Each library is it's own little world, and that's as it should be...

 

[Ravi]

Ok...are you honestly this stupid, or are you just joking around?

I think it's a valid question.

How do you filter out one type of porn and not the other?

 

[Larkinn]

Supreme Court affirms use of computer filters in public libraries

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a legal balancing act, the Supreme Court has decided Congress is allowed to protect children from pornography on public library computers, a move the majority said does not infringe on the free speech rights of others.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/24/scotus.internetporn.library/index.html

Your point?

fuck you.

Well reasoned. No definition of the bright line, no explanation of the stupidity behind stating nudity as the bright line, instead just a simple, eloquent "fuck you". Well done, sir.

deal with it. Accusing someone of not understanding what freedom means? Yea, thats probably not ironic as hell considering that YOU refuse to participate in your personal FREEDOM to jack off at home.

tsk...again a strawman. And no, you don't understand what freedom means. Anyone who is willing to censor everyone from the best, most efficient carrier of information the world has ever known because a minority might look at offensive materials on said efficient carrier, doesn't understand what freedom means.

 

[AllieBaba]

Just because it exists doesn't mean the libraries are OBLIGATED to make it available. Nor should they be.

And I guarantee, if you make free porn in libraries a "right" then the libraries will be flooded with the most depraved individuals imaginable. People who want to look at porn without being detected, and who at the same time want to prey on children.

Scout's honor. There are probably a few who have already read this who have trotted over to their libraries already to check it out.

 

[Shogun]

I doubt it. There are enough 1st amendment advocates and people who are decent that would fight tooth and nail against shutting off access to information for the poor, because of what a tiny minority might do.

tell it to the supreme court, beyotch. HA! yea, the POOR is just coralling into the fucking streets because they don't have access to publicly funded tits and ass!






Theres not an ambigious definition?

Then what is that definition, Shogun? I'd like to hear what the bright line rule is. Last time you said it was nudity. If your going to stick with that idiocy, care to explain to me how the statute of David isn't nude?


Perhaps after you explain how www.cuminhermouth.com is ART. Hell, we can develop a whole laundry list of inaproprate images for public libraries. Do we need to list every fucking action because you wanna throw a fit or do you want to make me laugh while comparing how similar are the Statue of David and www.hardcoreHarrysPuss-O-Rama.com?

 

[mattskramer]

The difference being, that WE each access this site from our own terminal locations at work or home or some other PRIVATE vector. PUBLIC Libraries should be just as capable of filtering out USMB as they should net porn.

You can cast judgement on what YOU think is a stick up someones ass but then you also have every opportunity to take your ass home and check out the net porn there. I assure you that personal opinions are not mandatory or universal.


So, then, maybe YOU will answer... Should Penthouse and Double Penetration Magazine be stocked at the public library too? Should they go ahead and invest in Barely LEgal dvds for their DVD collection? Is it THEIR job (the public, rather) to provide you with erotica? How are YOUR rights being infringed when you always have the freedom to go home and jack off?

Then I guess that the public sectors should lighten up.

Sure, such magazines should be available, perhaps as an opt-in basis. Keep them behind the check-out section where adults would have to ask for them. Is it their job (the public, rather) to provide you with anything? Is it their job to provide you with Rush Limbaugh books? If they are going to provide you with anything, then they should provide you with everything.

By the way, what is your opinion on the National Endowment of the Arts? I recall when there was no criticism when it supported Christian art works. Yet, as soon as it started to give tax money to artists that exhibited art that some people considered anti-Christian – oh boy was there an outcry to shut down the endowment program.

 

[Larkinn]

funny that you say anything about distinguishing anything, dude.

Umm, alright.

Again, don't puss out on me now, dude.. SHOULD TRANVESTITE MONTHLY sit next to the good housekeeping on the fucking public library mag rack?

Puss out on you? You mean anwser your question, AGAIN? Its the difference between getting a LOT of information which porn comes with, and specifically paying for just porn.

You understand that very simple concept?

 

[Larkinn]

tell it to the supreme court, beyotch. HA! yea, the POOR is just coralling into the fucking streets because they don't have access to publicly funded tits and ass!

The court said nothing about providing internet access or not, genius.

Perhaps after you explain how www.cuminhermouth.com is ART. Hell, we can develop a whole laundry list of inaproprate images for public libraries. Do we need to list every fucking action because you wanna throw a fit or do you want to make me laugh while comparing how similar are the Statue of David and www.hardcoreHarrysPuss-O-Rama.com?

Who says there isn't a difference? But if you can't articulate the difference, then its problematic.

 

[Shogun]

There are many things that I don’t like people to look at with my tax dollar. I don't want people reading stuff that you like with my tax money. How does that grab you? Perhaps libraries should be privatized. I think that such would end the debate. Just as it is with public schools, some people think that it would be wrong to expose people to certain things with their tax dollars. Some people think that it would be wrong to expose people to other things.

Well, we can always take a vote on it, dude. Library access isn't a protected liberty. Net porn isn't speech. It's not art. It sure as hell isn't similar to the reason we know about Lenny Bruce and City Lights bookstore. Libraries don't have a monopoly on internet access. net porn is not the variable keeping poor communities downtrodden.

In fact, Jillian, would you care to comment on the three tiers of obscenity from the Miller Court?

 

[AllieBaba]

Ok, I ran across one site that said internet censorship is required by libraries who want federal subsidies. I don't know if it's accurate, but here's the link:
http://webpages.charter.net/tomeboy/censorship.html