Porn is ok but safety of children is not.

[Shogun]

I actually agree that the First Amendment (actually, all Amendments) should be subject to common sense restrictions. I even may agree with computer terminals and filter software in public libraries (difficult issue, I am not sure). I was just surprised that you believe the 2nd Amendment should be given the fullest possible expression, and you appear to believe that the First Amendment should not.

But thats the difference between myself and the Larkins out there. I would never insist that my second amendment rights are being offended because wal mart refuses to sell me a gun. Nor, if I were refused permission to hunt on particular land. Nor, would I assume that the public pay for my weapon. Nor, would I insist that it's my constituional right to bare have guns if I hae murdered someone. He's taking a rather obvious position of someone who can't fathom the application of liberty AND personal responsibility. Thats the crux of this: he can go home and look at net porn. It's still available to him; just not on HIS terms. I still have access to guns even if Wal mart refuses to sell me one. I still have access to hunting fields even if a landowner says no. I realize that it's my own liberty to pursue these freedoms without having to insist that the public provide them for me.


I do believe in the broad definition of liberty... but, I don't expect the collective public to pay for my participation.

 

[AllieBaba]

She doesn't reply to comments which show the shakiness of her position.

Won't do it.

 

[jillian]

I understand this point and I've refuted it's relevance to the matter under discussion multiple times. I'll try again, using baby steps this time.

Agree or disagree with the following statment:

The 1st Amendment DOES NOT GUARANTEE that libraries must carry every book ever written, nor any specific books.

True or False?

you haven't refuted its relevance at all. In fact you've repeated the ridiculousness that a legislature should "unban" To Kill A Mockingbird, how many times?

Like anything else, ... they can do what they like BUT NOT FOR AN ILLEGAL PURPOSE. Like ITS CONTENT.

Understand?

Or do I need to speak more slowly for you?

 

[jillian]

She doesn't reply to comments which show the shakiness of her position.

Won't do it.

I think you'd better go back now and defend child abusers on the other thread.

 

[manifold]

Jillian,

Agree or disagree with the following statement:

The 1st Amendment DOES NOT GUARANTEE that libraries must carry every book ever written, nor any specific books.

True or False?

 

[jillian]

Jillian,

Agree or disagree with the following statment:

The 1st Amendment DOES NOT GUARANTEE that libraries must carry every book ever written, nor any specific books.

True or False?

I've already answered you. Like the answer or don't. You got my answer. And I can't help you if you don't understand the First Amendment is more than yes or no answers. You're on your own.

 

[AllieBaba]

Lol.

 

[manifold]

Jillian please,

I honestly have not seen you answer this very simple and very specific question.

Agree or disagree with the following statement:

The 1st Amendment DOES NOT GUARANTEE that libraries must carry every book ever written, nor any specific books.

True or False?

 

[AllieBaba]

She won't answer.
And Jillian, you lied when you said you did.

 

[manifold]

Jillian,

A simple true or false will suffice.

 

[jillian]

Jillian please,

I honestly have not seen you answer this very simple and very specific question.

Agree or disagree with the following statement:

The 1st Amendment DOES NOT GUARANTEE that libraries must carry every book ever written, nor any specific books.

True or False?

You got my answer. Keep asking. Perhaps you don't understand???

Yep... that's what I'm thinking.

 

[manifold]

Jillian,

If you answered the question, then yes, I absolutely missed it and/or didn't understand it. But I'm no fan of ignorance, so please educate me.

The 1st Amendment DOES NOT GUARANTEE that libraries must carry every book ever written, nor any specific books.

True or False?

 

[Shogun]

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.

No offense, Ravi.. but I thnk you need to fill in the blanks and read a lil bit about the actual cases that you mention rather than suggest that "censorship is censorhip"

Feel free to listen to some Lenny Bruce and compare HIS material with what a net porn filter blocks from a PUBLIC venue. Have a gander at Howl and read about the motivation behind shutting down City Lights bookstore. It wasn't a matter of protecting a PUBLIC FUNDED facilty either time.

 

[AllieBaba]

Jillian,

If you answered the question, then yes, I absolutely missed it and/or didn't understand it. But I'm no fan of ignorance, so please educate me.

The 1st Amendment DOES NOT GUARANTEE that libraries must carry every book ever written, nor any specific books.

True or False?

Hey Jillie, why don't you post a link or a number for your previous "answer"?

Liar.

 

[Shogun]

One issue involves an individual person keeping their children from this stuff. In such a case, the First Amendment isn't even implicated. Once the government becomes involved, you have to take account of the First Amendment.

I am okay with filtering software on library computers provided it is the least constricting means of accomplishing the task (of keeping children from pornography). I don't like restricting adults though. That seems problematic to me. I would favor two separate computer banks - one accessible by adults and children and one accessible only by adults. The former could have filtering technology and the latter would not. That way, adults can continue to access whatever they want and everybody wins.

and, whose to say that the OTHER issue isn't merely a mater of the same since parents can always just not send their kids to the library? You don't think the government IS involved when "adult" material is FILTERED from the rest? Should a public library DECIDE let a 14 year old nubile girl read Lolita?


See, thats just it though. NO ONE is restricting your access to net porn. By all means, go enjoy it at home. You have every opportunity to practice the liberty of porn watching outside of the public arena. Libraries are not banning PORN. Just, porn in THEIR premises.

Adults can't just access anything they want using public methods either. Can I go rent 18 Year Old First Timers and cop a squat in the library lounge using the PUBLICLY funded dvd player?


This isn't a first amendment issue. Those trying to wrap their opinions in first amendment wrapping paper cheapens it's meaning.

 

[ReillyT]

But thats the difference between myself and the Larkins out there. I would never insist that my second amendment rights are being offended because wal mart refuses to sell me a gun. Nor, if I were refused permission to hunt on particular land. Nor, would I assume that the public pay for my weapon. Nor, would I insist that it's my constituional right to bare have guns if I hae murdered someone. He's taking a rather obvious position of someone who can't fathom the application of liberty AND personal responsibility. Thats the crux of this: he can go home and look at net porn. It's still available to him; just not on HIS terms. I still have access to guns even if Wal mart refuses to sell me one. I still have access to hunting fields even if a landowner says no. I realize that it's my own liberty to pursue these freedoms without having to insist that the public provide them for me.


I do believe in the broad definition of liberty... but, I don't expect the collective public to pay for my participation.

Fair enough. I think we come at it from different angles. My default is that if the government provides a forum, they can't then differentiate on what content is placed in that forum for viewpoint-specific reasons. I think your default is that the government can impose broad restrictions (although perhaps not political speech). My guess is that the answer lies somewhere in the middle. I have no confidence that my default position is necessarily right.

 

[manifold]

This isn't a first amendment issue. Those trying to wrap their opinions in first amendment wrapping paper cheapen it's meaning.

And then some!

 

[jillian]

Hey Jillie, why don't you post a link or a number for your previous "answer"?

Liar.

 

[Shogun]

You're talking internet videos. I'm talking about filters set any which way that don't discern between www.twogirlsonecup.com and The Art of War.

So some librarian with a bug up her butt decides she doesn't like Leonardo DiCaprio in Romeo and Juliette because it deals with teenage sex and that's that???

no, IM talking about porn. NET porn. If the filtering methods need to be refined then so be it. But, it's ludicrous to suggest a constitutional right to view porn using public property.


and, for real Jillian, are you REALLY going to compare romeo and juliet with two girls one cup? Hell, the older version even showed some tits and THATS still not porn. Are you really going to ignore what Miller had to say on the issue of obscenity?

 

[ReillyT]

and, whose to say that the OTHER issue isn't merely a mater of the same since parents can always just not send their kids to the library? You don't think the government IS involved when "adult" material is FILTERED from the rest? Should a public library DECIDE let a 14 year old nubile girl read Lolita?


See, thats just it though. NO ONE is restricting your access to net porn. By all means, go enjoy it at home. You have every opportunity to practice the liberty of porn watching outside of the public arena. Libraries are not banning PORN. Just, porn in THEIR premises.

Adults can't just access anything they want using public methods either. Can I go rent 18 Year Old First Timers and cop a squat in the library lounge using the PUBLICLY funded dvd player?


This isn't a first amendment issue. Those trying to wrap their opinions in first amendment wrapping paper cheapens it's meaning.

The question remains what obligations the government has to provide content-neutral materials (or what ability the government has to restrict content-specific views) in forums that it provides for the expression of ideas. The First Amendment may allow libraries to utilize filtering software (or it may not) of differing kinds, but it is clealry a First Amendment issue -at least to the extent there is any question as to the law, which I think there is. There can be little doubt about that.