Porn is ok but safety of children is not.

[AllieBaba]

It looks like you're sucking up to the mods.

 

[jillian]

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

Yours have also made a lot of sense.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...

kidding. no worries. lol...

 

[manifold]

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?

I don't like the practice, but yes, it should be allowed unless legislated otherwise. It's just not a constitutionally protected individual liberty issue so I just can't see it any other way.

 

[Shogun]

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


HA!

riiiiiiiiiight... because NO Scotus decision ever set precedence...




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

Ok then....


who the fuck says that people looking at NETPORN necessarily want to do so in public since you seem to think as much is a constitutional fucking right?

indeed, ok 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?


sorry, YOUR opinion of what libraries should or should not ignore being viewed in their machines amount to two things: jack and shit.


after all.. we sure don't ahve any examples of people looking at CP at the fucking library, do we? Hey, I hear child predators prowling the library happens less than bigfoot sightings too! Larkin Says so!

 

[jillian]

I don't like the practice, but yes, it should be allowed unless legislated otherwise. It's just not a constitutionally protected individual liberty issue so I jsut can't see it any other way.

What part of you don't legislate to correct First Amendment Violations are you missing? Seriously.

The Court strikes down infringements... if the legislature then wants a less onerous restriction that maybe will withstand constitutional scrutiny THEN they legislate.

 

[manifold]

What part of you don't legislate to correct First Amendment Violations are you missing? Seriously.

Nothing.

What part of THIS DOESN'T FUCKING VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT are you missing? Seriously.

 

[Larkinn]

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.

Thats an extremely narrow version of freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is not a guarantee of an audience.

Yes, we went over this already. Nice strawman, but no. It does, however, guarantee that those who want and can afford access to your speech be allowed access without gov't interference.

 

[jillian]

Nothing.

What part of THIS DOESN"T FUCKING VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT are you missing? Seriously.

So the legislature would have to fix To Kill A Mockingbird or The Communist Manifesto or The Art of War being censored?

Puleeze... but feel free to curse some more because you have no answer.

 

[Larkinn]

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

My god...do you honestly not understand the difference?

 

[Larkinn]

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

thats too fucking funny, dude.

Nope. Nor is it relevant to my point.

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

So then care to refute it?

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

Can you, just once, reply in a coherent fashion and actually address the point?

By the way...still waiting to hear about how the statue of david is somehow not nude.

 

[manifold]

Thats an extremely narrow version of freedom of speech.

Really?? So I take it you are one of those retards that insisted Rush Limbaugh's 1st Amendment rights were violated by ESPN?? If so, then I'm obviously wasting my time.

Yes, we went over this already. Nice strawman, but no. It does, however, guarantee that those who want and can afford access to your speech be allowed access without gov't interference.

Again, you're misusing the strawman term. I've made no attempt to represent your position in any way so I can hardly be guilty of mis-representing it. And for the bazzilionth time, nobody that wants and can afford access to pornography is being denied the right to do so. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it a rights violation. It's this brand of ignorance that is enabling the pulling of wool over our collective eyes by such brazen violations as the Patriot Act. I hope you're proud of yourself.

 

[AllieBaba]

I'm not exactly clear on the difference, either. From what I've read, the terminology means different things to different people, and is actually addressed as ambiguous here and there.

I thought "banning" just meant not offering. I guess it's a different thing if the government "bans" a book, but that isn't what we're talking about. We're not talking about making it illegal for anyone to access porn. We're talking about the library providing the materials for people to access illegal pornography, which exploits children etc.

 

[Larkinn]

HA!

riiiiiiiiiight... because NO Scotus decision ever set precedence...

The two issues are easily distinguishable to anyone with half a brain.

who the fuck says that people looking at NETPORN necessarily want to do so in public since you seem to think as much is a constitutional fucking right?

indeed, ok then.

wtf? You did not respond to my point at all.

sorry, YOUR opinion of what libraries should or should not ignore being viewed in their machines amount to two things: jack and shit.

As does yours. However thats what we are discussing, opinions. If you don't want to discuss opinions, stop spending your life on a message board.

after all.. we sure don't ahve any examples of people looking at CP at the fucking library, do we? Hey, I hear child predators prowling the library happens less than bigfoot sightings too! Larkin Says so!

Hey, and they also got arrested, didn't they. Curious as to what would have happened if this "predator" did all of his business behind closed doors? Well?

 

[Shogun]

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

I can tell you that the statue of David isn't PORN. I assumed that you would be smart enough to stay on the subject of PORN isntead of looking for every conceivable way to desperately validate your stupid opinion. Clearly, my mistake was assuming you had a brain.


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

Ouch, burns a bit, doesn't it?


so, where does the Constitution suggest as much?
HAHAHAHAHA!
yea, you tell me all about the burning, due.


And taking away an OPTION is taking away some FREEDOM.



no it's not. any more than any other legal criteria limiting behaviour to a specific social standard. 15 year olds are not having their RIGHTS violate by the drinking age. You are a fucking idiot for even suggesting as much.



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



well, given the outright stupidity of your fucking analogy...

 

[manifold]

So the legislature would have to fix To Kill A Mockingbird or The Communist Manifesto or The Art of War being censored?

Puleeze... but feel free to curse some more because you have no answer.

I apologize for the curse, but you did ignore my point twice. And now that I understand your position I'll address it.

These aren't 1st Amendment violations either. So it would be fixing what I consider a wrong, but not a free speech violation.

 

[mattskramer]

We're talking about the library providing the materials for people to access illegal pornography, which exploits children etc.

No. We are not talking about that either. We are talking about the library providing the materials (via tax money) for people to access many things including legal pornography. People should not be allowed access to things that are illegal (such as child pornography). I think that everyone is in agreement on that.

 

[ReillyT]

I apologize for the curse, but you did ignore my point twice. And now that I understand your position I'll address it.

These aren't 1st Amendment violations either. So it would be fixing what I consider a wrong, but not a free speech violation.

I think I must be misunderstanding you. Are you saying that it doesn't infringe the 1st Amendment for the government to ban To Kill a Mockingbird?

 

[Shogun]

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.

Should one really waste their time "refuting" what scrolling up can solve?




indeed, for a guy who you think doesn't know what he's talking about I sure am the only one to have posted evidence on the issue so far.

DOH!


shit.. scotus was probably limiting your first amendment rights by not asking you first anydamnway, eh?

 

[Larkinn]

Really?? So I take it you are one of those retards that insisted Rush Limbaugh's 1st Amendment rights were violated by ESPN?? If so, then I'm obviously wasting my time.

I don't know the facts of the case.

Again, you're misusing the strawman term. I've made no attempt to represent your position in any way so I can hardly be guilty of mis-representing it.

You said.

Freedom of speech is not a guarantee of an audience.

Again. You are arguing against something I never said. Twice. Hence, a strawman.

And for the bazzilionth time, nobody that wants and can afford access to pornography is being denied the right to do so.

Sure they are. Anyone who wanted it could afford it when its at libraries (its free). Now they need a computer and a house.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it a rights violation.

No shit sherlock. Its actually the opposite. I have no desire to see people watch porn at a public library and I defintely have NO desire to do it myself. But it IS a right thats being infringed upon.

It's this brand of ignorance that is enabling the pulling of wool over our collective eyes by such brazen violations as the Patriot Act. I hope you're proud of yourself.

No, that would be YOUR brand of ignorance. Who the hell really wants porn to be available at a library? I don't. But I am willing to support something I don't like because I think its the right thing to do, may be unconstituional to ban it, and is definitely an infringement on rights. Want to talk the Patriot Act? The thing that nobody spoke against even though it was an infringement of rights (similar to this), that people wanted anyway because they were scared (similar to this)? Its a good example, just not for your side.

 

[AllieBaba]

We don't have a constitutional right to access all available reading material in a library.

I think that's the 10th time that point has been made. The government has a constitutional obligation not to make it illegal for us to obtain/read any material we wish, but the libraries are in no way obligated to provide any and all literary/internet works to us free of charge.

There is no way any library can provide every item every patron wants on demand, so there is no way a library is "required" to provide illegal porn to patrons because without it, they may not be able to access E-Harmony, or the ELF website.

The American Library Association and other library associations and librarians in general have their own agenda, which is to stand firm against censorship and try to sure that no viewpoint is excluded...but that's a whole different thing from freedom of speech.