Porn is ok but safety of children is not.

[Shogun]

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).

are you REALLY putting Catcher on par with www.twogirlsonecup.com?

for real?


and, again, do you want to comment on the miller court's three tiered criteria for obscenity? Do you want to offer a guess as to why Catcher is a tad bit different than internet videos?

 

[AllieBaba]

Nobody spoke against the Patriot Act because they DIDN'T WANT TO, jackass. Not because they were prevented from doing so.

I heard plenty of jackasses screeching all over the place about it. There just weren't enough suicidal morons to make much of an impression, though.

 

[Ravi]

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.





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.

You are truly being a hypocrite. ESPN and Rush have nothing to do with free speech. One doesn't legislate laws to allow things. One legislates to not allow things.

Who exactly is forcing anyone to go to the library? No one. Censorship is not allowed under the first amendment. In case you've forgotten, censorship means the state cannot forbid your speech or your access to the speech of others.

 

[ReillyT]

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.

The 1st Amendment only protects against government suppression of speech. ESPN can fire someone for engaging in speech that they don't like. No problem with that.

 

[manifold]

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?

No.

I'm saying it doesn't infringe the 1st Amendment for the government to decide not to offer To Kill a Mockingbird as borrowable item. If they banned the production and sale of it, that would be an obvious violation.

 

[AllieBaba]

Bingo.

 

[Shogun]

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.

thats EXACTLY the point. Where does the Constitution say that the .gov, or PUBLIC, has to provide a conduit for your expression? Should shock jocks cry fould too when their listeners drop in population? Hell, for that matter, when any radio personality gets canned isn't this just a travesty of said DJs first amendment right to use the radio to convey his message?

 

[ReillyT]

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.

A. What the hell are you babbling about?

B. Why do you keep referring to "illegal" pornography, when most everyone else is discussing legal pornography?

 

[Larkinn]

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.

No, the difference is the reasoning behind it.

Ok...say for example the government had to decide between public policy objectives of teaching poor kids to read, and starting a new school in a black ghetto. Two different scenarios.

Scenario 1) It decides to teach the poor kids to read because it thinks that will help society ore.

Scenario 2) It decides to teach the poor kids to read because it thinks that blacks are unable to benefit and will waste the money.

One is illegal, one isn't. Same result happens.

Its the difference (in the porn case) between not having something because you can't afford it, and not having something because you actively want to ban it.

 

[manifold]

Nobody spoke against the Patriot Act because they DIDN'T WANT TO, jackass. Not because they were prevented from doing so.

I heard plenty of jackasses screeching all over the place about it. There just weren't enough suicidal morons to make much of an impression, though.

You're kind of proving my point here. These jackasses have cried wolf so many times that they just don't get taken seriously. And when an actual wolf came along, he got to gobble up all of us unprotected sheep. But that's a topic for another thread.

 

[ReillyT]

No.

I'm saying it doesn't infringe the 1st Amendment for the government to decide not to offer To Kill a Mockingbird as borrowable item. If they banned the production and sale of it, that would be an obvious violation.

From a legal point of view, as a factual matter, I think that is wrong. Once the government provides a forum, it doesn't have the unlimited right to restrict viewpoints. The topic we are discussing now is one of the borderline cases. To Kill a Mockingbird is not.

 

[manifold]

You are truly being a hypocrite. ESPN and Rush have nothing to do with free speech. One doesn't legislate laws to allow things. One legislates to not allow things.

I don't see any hypocrisy whatsoever. My suggestion is to NOT ALLOW the filtering of certain material. Filtering which, as best as I can see, is currently ALLOWED.

Who exactly is forcing anyone to go to the library? No one. Censorship is not allowed under the first amendment. In case you've forgotten, censorship means the state cannot forbid your speech or your access to the speech of others.

Tell that to the FCC.

Censorship is allowed. I see it everyday.

Filtering porn is not the same thing as outlawing porn.

 

[Larkinn]

I can tell you that the statue of David isn't PORN.

So nudity isn't porn then? Or what?

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.

Oh, I've stayed on the subject and tried to pin you down on what you are saying. So is your new claim that the line isn't nudity? So what is it? Or are you claiming there is no line?

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

You have a Constitutional right to freedom? Not quite. YOU, in your idiocy, made a statement that agreed with me. Amusing.

no it's not.

LMFAO...taking away the right to do something isn't taking away freedom?

Wow, you ARE stupid.

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.

Rights violated is not the same thing as freedom. Nice job at obfuscating the terms tho.

thats EXACTLY the point. Where does the Constitution say that the .gov, or PUBLIC, has to provide a conduit for your expression? Should shock jocks cry fould too when their listeners drop in population? Hell, for that matter, when any radio personality gets canned isn't this just a travesty of said DJs first amendment right to use the radio to convey his message?

It doesn't HAVE to go purchase Catcher in the Rye for you, but if it doesn't allow the book because of vulgarity, THAT brings up serious 1st amendment issues.

 

[manifold]

From a legal point of view, as a factual matter, I think that is wrong. Once the government provides a forum, it doesn't have the unlimited right to restrict viewpoints.

Ample precedent disagrees with you.

Again, consider the FCC.

 

[Shogun]

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?

First paragraph: Yes. Very much in the same way the .gov is free to construct it's own standards for every other branch of tax supported public benefit.

Second, I don't put ideas from books on par with obscene images. Not to mention, that EVERY example used so far was from back when people were ACTUALLY trying to stifle IDEAS from books rather than maintain a public standard in PUBLIC locations.

Is it "freedom of expression" to piss in an alleyway after the bar? It's fun to wrap the first around every little whim and opinon but, again, acting like the sky is falling over porn filters in public libraries really isn't even remotely comparable to City Lights or Lenny Bruce. NEITHER were peddling in graphic sexual obscenity.

 

[Ravi]

I don't see any hypocrisy whatsoever. My suggestion is to NOT ALLOW the filtering of certain material. Filtering which, as best as I can see, is currently ALLOWED.




Tell that to the FCC.

You are talking about legislation to allow Mockingbird. It shouldn't be needed because it falls under protected speech. So does porn, like it or not.

The FCC is un-American, imo. I don't need the government to babysit my children, nor the moral majority to do the same.

I'm really getting quite a chuckle out of all these admitted porn users having a meltdown over this issue.

 

[Shogun]

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

I could ask you the same thing regarding granite statues and donkeyporn but I guess what YOU consider obvious, once again, just isn't the standard by which the rest of us operate.

 

[Larkinn]

I could ask you the same thing regarding granite statues and donkeyporn but I guess what YOU consider obvious, once again, just isn't the standard by which the rest of us operate.

So then where is the line Shogun?

Oh wait...my bad...the line is nudity, right ?

 

[manifold]

You are talking about legislation to allow Mockingbird. It shouldn't be needed because it falls under protected speech. So does porn, like it or not.

Groan!

No, I'm not. It is already allowed dillhole.

The FCC is un-American, imo. I don't need the government to babysit my children, nor the moral majority to do the same.

You're entitled to your opinion. I disagree with much of the FCC's decisions, but I don't see any reason why entertainment media should get a pass on government regulation when no other industry does. Why are you so supportive of intervention in some areas and insist there should be none in others?

 

[Shogun]

Nope. Nor is it relevant to my point.
So then care to refute it?
REFUTE what? That you are stupid enough to scream First Amendment while acting like the fucking Constitution is irrelevant when I point out that you don't have the right to use the PUBLIC to spread your point of view?



no, I think I'll just laugh at you for assuming that the constitution both protects your vector of speech while, apparently, being irrelevant to the issue.




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

It's exactly your points that I'm batting away like Kareem Abdul Jabar that sends you running back to your silly little quiver of stupidity, dude.

Again, since IM the one one between the two of us to post evidence beyond personal opinion perhaps you should hesitate to point that finger, eh?




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

I addressed that. it was my mistake when assuming that you were capable of having a discussion about PORN without running to granite statues. Clearly, you are going to assume that two dogs fucking is also porn once I make any distinction.