Porn is ok but safety of children is not.

[AllieBaba]

I hadn't considered the difference.

Here's the American Library Association's
Library Bill of Rights
The American Library Association affirms that all libraries are forums for information and ideas, and that the following basic policies should guide their services.

I. Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation.

II. Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.

III. Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment.

IV. Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas.

V. A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.

VI. Libraries which make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adopted June 18, 1948, by the ALA Council; amended February 2, 1961; amended June 28, 1967; amended January 23, 1980; inclusion of “age” reaffirmed January 24, 1996.

A history of the Library Bill of Rights is found in the latest edition of the Intellectual Freedom Manual.


AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION
50 E. Huron Chicago, IL 60611 Call Us Toll Free 1-800-545-2433


© 2008 American Library Association. Copyright Statement
View our Privacy Policy. For questions or comments about the Web site, complete the Feedback Form.
FAQ Member and Customer Service Events Calendar
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/statementsif/librarybillrights.cfm

I'm still for "not offering" internet porn...but not to the exclusion of other material. People should be able to check their emails, go to You Tube or My Space and access whatever else the internet has to provide. So if you can't block porn without blocking the rest, then I guess don't block the porn.

But there should be signs up telling patrons not to access porn sites, and intermittent "walk-bys" of librarians, or a quick check of the history when patrons leave to make sure nobody is using the computers illegally.

That's pretty easy to do.

 

[ReillyT]

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.

I don't disagree with your stance on this particular issue, but it seems inconsistent with your stance on the 2nd Amendment. In the thread "Please Insure Your 2nd Amendment Rights," (I wasn't sure how to link a thread) you state:

If the second amendment specifically said that we are allowed to consume drugs then we'd all be some (open) drug using suckers. I'm not willing to give up my liberty for the sake of your rhetoric...

Your last paragraph illustrates exactly my concern of the slope... if YOU can't pinpoint where to draw the line then whose opinion gets to? This is why we vote and amend the constitution. If you don't like the second then work to get rid of it. Otherwise, your OPINION is Y Pluribus Unum and is, in no way, a standard by which our constitutional rights should yield.

Why don't you wish for as full an expression of the 1st Amendment as you do the 2nd Amendment?

 

[Larkinn]

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.

Umm, no shit. Hence its an opt-out program. Different than buying porn magazines which is an opt-in program.

Get it now, genius?

 

[Shogun]

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

well, according to the supreme court I guess you are wrong about that too, eh?

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


yes. it happens. Do you need me to google it for you or can you manage?



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

OH well I guess we should all assume that the porn is ADULT porn then, eh? Imean, if LARKIN thinks so then..


Librarian fired after reporting porn incident

Friday, March 14, 2008
Printable Version
Email This Article
delicious del.icio.us
digg Digg
technorati Technorati
reddit Reddit
facebook Facebook slashdot Slashdot
fark Fark
newsvine Newsvine
google Google Bookmarks
(7)
Georgia (default)
Verdana
Times New Roman
Arial

(03-14) 11:28 PDT Lindsay, Calif. (AP) --

A librarian in the Tulare County city of Lindsay was fired after reporting that a man was using a library computer to view what she says was child pornography.

Brenda Biesterfeld says she saw a man viewing images of naked boys on one of the library's public computers in late February.

Biesterfield contacted her supervisor and asked her advice on what to do about the man. She was told to tell him to stop and that if he didn't he would be banned from the library.

She was also told not to call the police.

Despite that advice, Biesterfield called the police and told them about the incident.

County librarian Brian Lewis says there were solid business reasons behind Biesterfield's firing, though he did not go into detail.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/03/14/state/n112822D00.DTL

 

[manifold]

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?

I already addressed this. Whoever is in charge of managing the library's internet access and their superiors are the first level of deciders. However, you implement a process to review and challenge (and override if it comes to that) their decisions. The ultimate decision making power lies with the community.

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.

The might be worlds apart on their opinions concerning what is objectionable, but I have to disagree with you that they'd be worlds apart on what is pornographic. And the discussion is specific to pornography, not any and all potentially objectionable material

 

[Larkinn]

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.

Porn sites are having their speech violated. The question is whether its a justifiable violation.

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 haven't used a filter in a few years, but unless they've gotten significantly better, they are pretty shit.

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.

No, but its setting down that the library is policing someone elses morals. What if those morals also want to ban books that mention the history of slavery in the US? After all isn't it dangerous for kids to think badly of their country?

 

[jillian]

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.

They aren't "porn filters". They are "filters". And what's filtered out is the issue. People keep speaking in extremes... but it's not about the extremes. The extremes we agree on. It's the overlap between what's protected and what's not.

If I had to guess, when the case is before the Courts, they will look at it much the way they look at the cases involving what's on radio and unwilling recipients of information.

 

[manifold]

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.

I'd say no, no and no. And I be very surprised to find widespread disagreement about that here, except maybe on the second one.

 

[Larkinn]

well, according to the supreme court I guess you are wrong about that too, eh?

No, not quite. The USSC ruled on a specific issue. That wasn't it, dumbass.

yes. it happens. Do you need me to google it for you or can you manage?

So when you want to do things "without being detected", you do them in public?

Ok then....

OH well I guess we should all assume that the porn is ADULT porn then, eh? Imean, if LARKIN thinks so then..

Yes, we should. If its kiddie porn, they should be arrested. We already went over this topic. Care to actually read whats being said?

 

[Ravi]

Porn sites are having their speech violated. The question is whether its a justifiable violation.

I don't think that is correct. They might have a right to put it out there but they don't have a right to have some one look at it, surely?

I think the ACLU was arguing on the same lines that the consumer has a right to read or view whatever they wish to.

 

[Shogun]

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

and ADULT section?

who the fuck are YOU to censor what YOU think is ADULT or not???!?




Why would you try to hinder the freedom of speech by FILTERING what you consider "adult"?


and no, debby does dallas is not suitable for the public library. It's rediculous to insist that public libraries stock porn or be accused of stifling Larry Flint's freedom of speech.

 

[Larkinn]

I'd say no, no and no. And I be very surprised to find widespread disagreement about that here, except maybe on the second one.

Maybe here, but not in the public. One individual in the ACLU case had LGBT resources blocked.

 

[Larkinn]

I don't think that is correct. They might have a right to put it out there but they don't have a right to have some one look at it, surely?

They don't have a right to have someone look at it. They do have a right to have the government refrain from blocking others from looking at it.

 

[Ravi]

and ADULT section?

who the fuck are YOU to censor what YOU think is ADULT or not???!?




Why would you try to hinder the freedom of speech by FILTERING what you consider "adult"?

Good point.

 

[Shogun]

Not quite. But nice try.

Hey, I posted MY evidence. where is yours?


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

refuse to address what? that you can't distinguish between pictures of people fucking and spreading their labia minora from granite sculpture?




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.


HA! yea, amuse yourself to the SCOTUS decision, bitch. Then again, I'm sure you'll be on here insisting that it's a strawman to even bring up supreme court decisions specifically regarding public libraries, porn and net filters.



this certainly is one of those "at you" instead of "with you" moments.


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

FREEDOM is OPTIONS. you know, like the FREEDOM you have to take your scurvy fucking ass home and jack off after contaminating your keyboard. After all, libraries have no monopoly on the internet.

but, hey, it's still fun watching you cry like a bitch about freedom when you can't have what you want, when you want, from who you want it from.



poor guy.



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.


Oh, so now DRINKING WATER is just like NET PORN!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


yea, dude. accuse me of a stawman ONE MORE TIME!

you dumb sonofabitch.

Indeed, it SURE IS in the public interest to MAKE SURE everyone has access to clean, uh, NET PORN!

 

[manifold]

They aren't "porn filters". They are "filters". And what's filtered out is the issue. People keep speaking in extremes... but it's not about the extremes. The extremes we agree on. It's the overlap between what's protected and what's not.

If I had to guess, when the case is before the Courts, they will look at it much the way they look at the cases involving what's on radio and unwilling recipients of information.

I understand that. But the only thing the courts should be deciding is the legality of filtering, and for the most part they already have. Since everyone has pretty much acknowledged that what should specifically be filtered is subjective, that should be left up to the individual communities to decide for themselves. If you or Larkinn believe that there is rampant overzealous filtering going on, talk to your legislators. They can just as easily pass laws requiring libraries that provide internet access to permit certain material as they can forbidding certain material. The crux of the matter is that its just not a matter of constiutionally protected individual liberty and therefore the majority rules. That's what our whole system is about. We protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority, but there is nothing tyrannical about filtering pornography at local libraries.

 

[Shogun]

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



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

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Oh so NOW your position is that banning the ENTIRE internet from libraries in general infringes on your 1st amendment rights? It doesn't. But, it's fun watching you remold your argument based on how many teeth iv'e already kicked out of your fucking head.


HA!

yea, dude... YOUR rights sure are being violated if YOU cant go to the library and surf the net.




holy SHIT that hilarious!

 

[Shogun]

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.

who is trying to interchange "PORN" with "OFFENSIVE"?


Again, an image of some chick in full bukakke glory isn't even close to similar to Ginsberg's Howl.

 

[Ravi]

I'm still for "not offering" internet porn...but not to the exclusion of other material. People should be able to check their emails, go to You Tube or My Space and access whatever else the internet has to provide. So if you can't block porn without blocking the rest, then I guess don't block the porn.

But there should be signs up telling patrons not to access porn sites, and intermittent "walk-bys" of librarians, or a quick check of the history when patrons leave to make sure nobody is using the computers illegally.

That's pretty easy to do.

I think the only way you can constitutionally block it is to declare it harmful. And let's face it, in our society porn is harmful, just like second hand smoke is...but since THAT will never happen I think the best thing to do is what most libraries are already doing, putting the terminals out where everyone can watch what you are up to.

 

[Larkinn]

refuse to address what? that you can't distinguish between pictures of people fucking and spreading their labia minora from granite sculpture?

That YOU claimed the difference was nudity. Yet again, care to explain how the Statute of David isn't nude?

FREEDOM is OPTIONS.

Yes, I agree. The OPTION to look at porn at the library which you are infringing on.

Ouch, burns a bit, doesn't it?

you know, like the FREEDOM you have to take your scurvy fucking ass home and jack off after contaminating your keyboard. After all, libraries have no monopoly on the internet.

And taking away an OPTION is taking away some FREEDOM.

Oh, so now DRINKING WATER is just like NET PORN!

I should have figured that a simple analogy would be too complicated for you.