Porn is ok but safety of children is not.

[Larkinn]

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

They aren't obligated to make it available, but neither are they allowed to NOT make it available on censorship grounds.

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.

People who want to look at porn without being detected...do it in public spaces?

Umm, ok then.

Oh yes, and think of the children. Sorry but looking at adult porn and preying on children aren't correlated.

 

[Larkinn]

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

Thats the case Shogun posted.

 

[mattskramer]

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?

No. I think that other magazine titles would fit between them. That magazine would probably best fit in an adult section.

 

[Shogun]

Your point?

My point is that you've already had your ass handed to you on this subject 5 years ago.



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.


It's probably as impressive as confusing statues for net porn. Take it up with Scotus, bitch.


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.



HA!

yea, NO ONE knows what freedom is except for you, eh bitch? Indeed, accuse me of a strawman while telling all of us what ANYONE should think.



holy shit you are stupid.

FREEDOM is taking your punk ass home and jacking off there. FREEDOM is having the option even if you can't take it where you want to get it from. YOU are just a whiny little bitch who thinks the world shold revolve around your opinion. Sorry. Realty is like the Porn Filter at the library keeping your web surfing free of such stupidity.

 

[Shogun]

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

and I never alluded to such. What I posted addresses your crybaby claim that net filters in public libraries limits your first amendment rights. they don't.

myawww.. I didn't mean to use more than your opinon for the test of public policy. SHIT, maybe next time.



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


It's not problematic at all for those who aren't clutching on to some sad, half-assed position that has already been addressed by scotus.

 

[jillian]

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.

Again, it has nothing to do with obligation. It has to do with once it's provided, what is the standard and can there be censorship?

I don't think anyone is arguing that people should be able to access pornography in the library. Obscenity has always been subject to censorship. Filters, however, do not only filter out the noxioius..... which is why my question has always been who sets the standard for the filter and what are they filtering?

 

[manifold]

Larkinn,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you previously acknowledged that it's unrealistic to insist upon a clear cut bright line, yet you seem to keep arguing that without it, there should be no line. Of course people's judgement will be different, but I submit that the differences would be infrequent, minor, and very manageable.

I would be willing to reconsider my position if you could provide one or two examples for which there would not be overwhelming agreement, on one side or the other, among the active members here at USMB. We've got fairly broad coverage of the political spectrum here so I wouldn't necessarily expect to see an aggregate bias.

 

[AllieBaba]

I've been looking around. It varies from library to library, and some libraries don't really have a policy in place to deal with objections to certain materials. Requests to ban material comes from a variety of different sources. If there's no policy in place, then the libraries will often just go with the request. Or they may take it to a board. Or to the community.

But apparently, in order to receive federal $$ they have to use porn filters.

 

[Larkinn]

My point is that you've already had your ass handed to you on this subject 5 years ago.

Not quite. But nice try.

It's probably as impressive as confusing statues for net porn. Take it up with Scotus, bitch.

Confusing statuses like saying the difference is nudity? Lmao, its hilarious that whenever I bring that up you just refuse to address it.

yea, NO ONE knows what freedom is except for you, eh bitch? Indeed, accuse me of a strawman while telling all of us what ANYONE should think.

Stop making strawman arguments and I'll stop accusing you of them. And feel free to think whatever dumb shit you want. It is more amusing that way, after all.

FREEDOM is taking your punk ass home and jacking off there.

FREEDOM is censorship? Ok then. You are a fucking moron, aren't you?

FREEDOM is having the option even if you can't take it where you want to get it from.

Really? So you have a freedom to drink water if the only water available to you is on the top of Mt. Everest?

Location matters as well.

 

[Larkinn]

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

and I never alluded to such. What I posted addresses your crybaby claim that net filters in public libraries limits your first amendment rights. they don't.

No, actually the argument was that banning net infringes on 1st amendment rights. Perhaps try reading my arguments before you respond next time, yeah?

It's not problematic at all for those who aren't clutching on to some sad, half-assed position that has already been addressed by scotus.

No, its a problem for pretty much everyone. Just one you refuse to acknowledge.

 

[AllieBaba]

Banning the net in a library is not a violation of first amendment rights. Patrons have the right to purchase their own computers, use a friends, or go to a cafe with computers.

They still have the right to access the internet.

 

[Ravi]

It turns out that the ACLU is against the filters for a variety of reasons, the main ones being it violates freedom of speech and that the filters don't work well (blocking out sites that aren't porn). There was also one case where they pointed out that it was wrong to impose one family's morals on everyone else and that the state shouldn't be babysitting children in this way, that is the parent's responsibility.

It's very hard to know which side is right, imo. Our libraries have all the terminals out in the open where anyone can see what you're up to, and you need to sign on with your library card to use the terminals.

 

[AllieBaba]

I think that's sort of the general consensus of librarians everywhere.

 

[Shogun]

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.

LIGHTEN UP is your opinion. Would you care to imagine a world full of a range of opinons outside of what you think is no big deal?


And no, public libraries should not house skin mags just to make your position consistent.

 

[Larkinn]

Larkinn,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you previously acknowledged that it's unrealistic to insist upon a clear cut bright line, yet you seem to keep arguing that without it, there should be no line.

Not entirely. I'm very hesitant to put in place a policy given the fact that there is no bright line. Given the fact that there is no bright line, who will be deciding?

Of course people's judgement will be different, but I submit that the differences would be infrequent, minor, and very manageable.

I doubt it. I think the difference of what constitutes porn between Librarians (who are generally fond of 1st amendment rights), and a fundamentalist Christian (who aren't so fond of said rights when it comes to sex) would be a world apart.

By the way...the original case was because things were banned such as LGBT resources. Is that porn?

I would be willing to reconsider my position if you could provide one or two examples for which there would not be overwhelming agreement, on one side or the other, among the active members here at USMB. We've got fairly broad coverage of the political spectrum here so I wouldn't necessarily expect to see an aggregate bias.

A picture of a womans back and you can see the top part of her ass.

A website which is text only porn.

LGBT resources.

 

[Ravi]

I think that's sort of the general consensus of librarians everywhere.

You'd think so. I saw one case where they talked about screening off areas for the "adults." Yeech.

 

[Larkinn]

Banning the net in a library is not a violation of first amendment rights. Patrons have the right to purchase their own computers, use a friends, or go to a cafe with computers.

They still have the right to access the internet.

Sure it is. That you can still access the net with obstacles doesn't make it any less of a violation. Banning it is clear censorship.

By the way...you do recognize that there is a difference between banning it and not offering it, right?

 

[manifold]

It turns out that the ACLU is against the filters for a variety of reasons, the main ones being it violates freedom of speech and that the filters don't work well (blocking out sites that aren't porn). There was also one case where they pointed out that it was wrong to impose one family's morals on everyone else and that the state shouldn't be babysitting children in this way, that is the parent's responsibility.

It's very hard to know which side is right, imo. Our libraries have all the terminals out in the open where anyone can see what you're up to, and you need to sign on with your library card to use the terminals.

I'll take your word for it.

And if this is the case, I believe the ACLU got it wrong on this one. Nobody's freedom of speech is violated by using porn filters. As far as the not working well argument, I'm calling bull shit. With the appropriate use of black lists and white lists, it's quite easy to tune the filter over time. I also call bull shit on the imposing of morals argument. It's not outlawing porn viewing and nobody is saying you can't view all the porn you want in your own home, on your own dime.

 

[Shogun]

Umm, alright.



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?

Indeed, do YOU understand that a filter for netporn isn't a restriction of all the OTHER content available on the web? It's pretty simple too, really.


Like I said, cry on the shoulder of the Scotus.

 

[Ravi]

I'll take your word for it.

And if this is the case, I believe the ACLU got it wrong on this one. Nobody's freedom of speech is violated by using porn filters. As far as the not working well argument, I'm calling bull shit. With the appropriate use of black lists and white lists, it's quite easy to tune the filter over time. I also call bull shit on the imposing of morals argument. It's not outlawing porn viewing and nobody is saying you can't view all the porn you want in your own home, on your own dime.

What about the argument of the state babysitting your children for you?

I mostly agree with you on this but I admit to being a little uncomfortable because if they can ban porn they can ban To Kill a Mockingbird because it offends some people.