Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Groan!
No, I'm not. It is already allowed dillhole.
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?
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.
Did you not state further back on the thread that you would support legislation to allow Mockingbird if needed? I'm pretty sure you did. It shouldn't be necessary because it is protected by the first amendment.
What other industry is regulated in this manner? Freedom of speech is constitutionally protected. Polluting the air is not.
Get it?
Ample precedent disagrees with you.
Again, consider the FCC.
Our Constitution does not permit the official suppression of ideas. Thus, whether petitioners' removal of books from their school libraries denied respondents their First Amendment rights depends upon the motivation behind petitioners' actions. If petitioners intended by their removal decision to deny respondents access to ideas with which petitioners disagreed, and if this intent was the decisive factor in petitioners' decision, [Footnote 22] then petitioners have exercised their discretion in violation of the Constitution. To permit such intentions to control official actions would be to encourage the precise sort of officially prescribed orthodoxy unequivocally condemned in Barnette.
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 435 U. S. 783 (1978). And we have recognized that "the State may not, consistently with the spirit of the First Amendment, contract the spectrum of available knowledge." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 381 U. S. 482 (1965). In keeping with this principle,
Page 457 U. S. 867
we have held that, in a variety of contexts, "the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas." Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557, 394 U. S. 564 (1969); see Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U. S. 753, 408 U. S. 762-763 (1972) (citing cases). This right is an inherent corollary of the rights of free speech and press that are explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, in two senses. First, the right to receive ideas follows ineluctably from the sender's First Amendment right to send them: "The right of freedom of speech and press . . . embraces the right to distribute literature, and necessarily protects the right to receive it." Martin v. Struthers, 319 U. S. 141, 319 U. S. 143 (1943) (citation omitted).
"The dissemination of ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing addressees are not free to receive and consider them. It would be a barren marketplace of ideas that had only sellers, and no buyers."
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.
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?
Obscenity is a special case, and materials that are determined to be obscene are not entitled to the same 1st Amendment protections. That may be the basis for many of the FCC regulations and rulings, but I am no expert on the FCC.
The seminal case I found deals with a high school library. I would think that a public library would have to abide by rules at least as strict, as courts often give schools more latitude with respect to the rights of children.
This case involves the removal of books from a library because they were deemed "anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semtic, and just plain filthy." The Court determined that while a school has discretion (and I would guess that public libraries have standards even more restrictive than this) it cannot remove books from libraries because of partisan or political opinions.
and
Anyway, this opinion didn't address obscenity and doesn't specifically address this issue of pornography. However, it does shed some background on the full expression of 1st Amendment rights. It also makes clear that just because the government provides something, it doesn't have unlimited ability to provide it in a partisan manner.
I will look for a better case when I have some time.
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.
Perhaps this is another example of me not making myself clear.
So I'll try again. I would support legislation, at the local level, to make Mockingbird part of my community library's offerings, thereby stripping overzealous artards with any say on the matter in this particular case.
As for your second point, I'm going to invoke the oft stated gun-control argument. Times change. Yup, the Founding Fathers never envisioned nukes. Well, they also never envisioned public transmissions over airwaves and fiber-optic cables either. And again, filtering porn does not incarcerate or fine ANYONE as a result of their speech.
Get it?
I have to ask..
is it legal for you to leave your library of dirty movies and mags and sex toys and blow up dolls and all the rest of it on the coffee table while babysitting any age range of children?
Would Libraries not be similarly making available adult material without a flter?
and, speaking of Adult, Why is it OK to FILTER what you think is material for any specific age range while NOT filtering the same material on public computer? Is www.penthouse.com somehow LESS obscene than Penthouse the magazine? If you can fathom the FILTERING of a mag rack why not the internet?
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?
Wow, you ARE stupid. 
Again, even at a local level, you shouldn't need legislation to allow something that is already protected by the 1st amendment.
You think porn didn't exist when the country started? LMAO! Most laws outlawing it have been since struck down. Why? Because they are unconstitutional.
Censorship is censorship. Remove internet access from the libraries and you remove the issue of protected speech. Make porn as harmful to society as we've made second hand smoke, again you get rid of the protected speech issue. Two easy answers to solve the problem.
I think Jillian's reasoning was just fine. Lewd behavior in public is already illegal. Anyone caught engaging in it is already breaking the law.
Just how big of a problem is this anyway? I've never seen anything in the press indicating that there is a rash of this behavior at local libraries.
So then where is the line Shogun?
Oh wait...my bad...the line is nudity, right ?
However, you'll have a really really tough time convincing me that filtering pornography qualifies as a restriction based on partisan or political opinions.
I'm beginning to suspect that this is one of those times where you are being intentionally dense for comedic effect.
But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on more time.
A. The 1st Amendment DOES NOT GUARANTEE that libraries must carry every book ever written, nor any specific books. Address this point or STFU! I'm getting tired of your bogus "legislating what is allowed" bull shit.
B. Porn filtering DOES NOT EQUAL outlawing porn. Address this point or STFU! I'm getting tired of you claiming that ANYONE has suggested porn should be outlawed.
C. Porn is considered potentially harmful. If it weren't, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
D. As for Jillian's brilliant point, it's really not that brilliant at all. It's essentially saying, don't filter porn, just fine and arrest anyone caught looking at it. Yup, that's some pretty profound logic there.
Again, it seems that you're not understanding, but keep insulting me given the brililance exhibited in your use of language.
NO LEGISLATION NEED BE PASSED TO PROTECT SOMETHING ALREADY PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
Get it? Got it? Good.
