Porn is ok but safety of children is not.

[manifold]

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.

The state babysits our children everyday they attend public school. That argument is stupid and holds no water. Didn't your hero write a book titled "It Takes a Village?" You do understand what that title implies I hope.

It would bother me too if they banned To Kill a Mockingbird. And I'd support legislation disallowing the banning of that, and similar works.

 

[Larkinn]

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!

When someone spends all their time laughing at an argument instead of refuting it, thats a pretty big clue they have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[jillian]

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.

For the most part, they really haven't. And it doesn't work that way. Courts get to review practices that violate the 1st Amendment. Nor is there any requirement that a burden on the 1st be repaired by legislation. That's getting it backwards.

And because we DO all agree that what's filtered is subjective, then perhaps some librarian with her own personal likes and dislikes doesn't get to filter.

What happens if Catcher in the Rye or the Communist Manifesto gets filtered. What if it's, oh, I don't know...... Project Guggenheim, because something in The Art of War triggers the filter.

I think it's a no-go. That said, I think it being out in the open, if someone is accessing pornographic material and it can be seen by those around them, they can be removed for lewd behavior same as anyone who would watch porn on their car's video screen. (BTW, I actually heard of some guy getting busted for that once).

 

[Ravi]

The state babysits our children everyday they attend public school. That argument is stupid and holds no water. Didn't your hero write a book titled "It Takes a Village?" You do understand what that title implies I hope.

It would bother me too if they banned To Kill a Mockingbird. And I'd support legislation disallowing the banning of that, and similar works.

My hero? Please. Actually you are more aligned with her on this issue than I am.

People try to get books like Mockingbird banned all the time.

 

[manifold]

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

I disagree completely. They are not being required to curb their speech in any manner whatsoever. They are not being fined. They are not being jailed. Freedom of speech is not a guarantee of an audience.

 

[manifold]

People try to get books like Mockingbird banned all the time.

Can you find me any examples of where it is actually banned today?

 

[manifold]

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

One example of an abuse is hardly sufficient justification to ban filtering.

 

[manifold]

For the most part, they really haven't. And it doesn't work that way. Courts get to review practices that violate the 1st Amendment. Nor is there any requirement that a burden on the 1st be repaired by legislation. That's getting it backwards.

It would only be backwards if the 1st Amendment was actually violated. Filtering internet content at a public libarary does not qualify. If you disagree, then offer me some compelling logic. So far, nobody has.

 

[Ravi]

Can you find me any examples of where it is actually banned today?

http://banned-books.com/bblista-i.html

 

[AllieBaba]

It would only be backwards if the 1st Amendment was actually violated. Filtering internet content at a public libarary does not qualify. If you disagree, then offer me some compelling logic. So far, nobody has.

It doesn't exist.

 

[Shogun]

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:



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

because I don't require the PUBLIC to fund my second amendment prerogative. I know I don't have a RIGHT to surfing the net in a public library. I don't require the PUBLIC to fund my infatuation with guns.


To me, this isn't a first amendment issue. In fact, insisting as much reminds me of al sharpton playing the race card each time he gets cut off in traffic.

 

[manifold]

http://banned-books.com/bblista-i.html

And where specifically are any of these books banned today?

 

[Shogun]

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

Get it now, genius?

Arent you the same guy trying to insist on a difference between "not offering" the internet and "banning" the internet?


The world probably revolves around the nomenclature you personally accept.

 

[Ravi]

And where specifically are any of these books banned today?

I don't know, I'd have to research each case to see if they are still currently banned.

 

[ReillyT]

because I don't require the PUBLIC to fund my second amendment prerogative. I know I don't have a RIGHT to surfing the net in a public library. I don't require the PUBLIC to fund my infatuation with guns.


To me, this isn't a first amendment issue. In fact, insisting as much reminds me of al sharpton playing the race card each time he gets cut off in traffic.

You are right. You have no right to access the internet in a public library. In fact, you have no right to a public library at all. Yet, once the government decides to offer you a library or internet within a library, does the government have the right to limit in a content-specific way what is available to you in these places.

By your logic, because you aren't guaranteed a right to a library, the library shouldn't be prevented from refusing to carry religious materials or Karl Marx. Do you really think libraries are or should be allowed to refuse to carry particular books on ideological grounds?

 

[Ravi]

You are right. You have no right to access the internet in a public library. In fact, you have no right to a public library at all. Yet, once the government decides to offer you a library or internet within a library, does the government have the right to limit in a content-specific way what is available to you in these places.

By your logic, because you aren't guaranteed a right to a library, the library shouldn't be prevented from refusing to carry religious materials or Karl Marx. Do you really think libraries are or should be allowed to refuse to carry particular books on ideological grounds?

Thank you. That's the first logical post on this thread.

 

[mattskramer]

Can you find me any examples of where it is actually banned today?

http://www.ala.org/ala/pressreleases2007/march2007/mc06.cfm

 

[Shogun]

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






yea.. because the CONSTITUTION guarentees that speech much have a venue for dissemination!

thats too fucking funny, dude.


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


well, thankfully, YOUR experience is the standard by which we all live!




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?

Feel free to police your OWN morals while surfing on your OWN net access in private.

Dangerous to read about slavery, eh? WOW thats desperate.

 

[jillian]

Thank you. That's the first logical post on this thread.

Thanks.

 

[Ravi]

Thanks.

Lol! I didn't want to look like I was sucking up to the mods.

Yours have also made a lot of sense.