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.
Again, it seems that you're not understanding, but keep insulting me given the brililance exhibited in your use of language. *rolls eyes*
NO LEGISLATION NEED BE PASSED TO PROTECT SOMETHING ALREADY PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
Get it? Got it? Good.
Next.... the whole point is that they can't willy nilly filter the internet so adults can't read Romeo and Juliette because it depicts underage sex because some librarian thinks it's immoral.
Again we're not talking about filtering porn... btw, it's not porn that's unprotected by the Constitution, it's OBSCENITY. And that standard that Shogie keeps harping on under Miller ... requires that there be no redeeming social value. I don't expect libraries to go that far. They aren't art houses. But I do expect whatever filtering they use not to be random and not to be overly restrictive.
And by the by, the Court in Miller recognized the danger in infringing upon ANY type of expression.
But, it's ludicrous to suggest a constitutional right to view porn using public property.
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?
NET PORN IS NOT FUCKING SHAKESPEAREAN TRAGEDIES
for crying the fuck out loud, jill.. Do you THINK anyone is talking about LITERATURE? This is amusing as hell that you seem to think www.bukakkefest.com is even remotely similar to fucking shakepsear.
Tell me what is the redeaming social value found at
www.ampland.com
THAT is a real porn sight. Feel free to post links to material you find as compelling as Hamlet.
You act like the two extremes are Hamlet and ampland.com. First, redeeming social value is just one prong of the test. Second, what if the filtering technology filters out stuff that falls between these two extremes, or mistakenly filters out stuff that informational as opposed to prurient?
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?
I would expect that to happen. And the solution is to tune the filters using white lists and black lists, just like spam filters, and over time the "mistakes" become fewer and fewer.
You know the answer. You can allow or disallow any book. But not because of content. I know you don't think that matters, but it does.
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.
Thank you. I applaud your intellectual honesty. A few others around here could learn a thing or two from your example.
But here's the rub.....ready...wait for it...
...as long as nobody cops to the reason being content, then they haven't broken the law, nor infringed on any rights, and that's one mighty huge loophole making the whole content based argument largely symbolic, academic, and almost totally moot.
And to finally bring closure to my original point. If I found out my local library didn't carry Mockingbird, I'd consider that a literary travesty. And I'd vote to make sure it finds it's way onto the next purchase order. I wouldn't file suit against them for infringing on my 1st Amendment rights.
That would solve part of the problem. However, it won't solve the problem of borderline cases. Somewhere along the spectrum is material whose pornographic or inappropriate nature is ambiguous. At that point, it either is or isn't protected by the First Amendment, and the sentiments of your local librarian may not be an adequate barometer.
My argument is that it would only be protected if you could reasonably show that the reason for blocking it was because of political content. If not, it ain't protected.
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.
What if you found out they banned To Kill A Mockingbird because of its anti-racism message?
And for the record, they don't have to cop to it. But I've found that when people do something they think is right, even if it's illegal, they're proud to admit it. In fact, they think they're heros.
What "expression of ideas", exactly, is being offered from twogirlsonecup?
and no, it's not a first amendment issue since the first amendment doesn't protect the VECTOR (path, avenue, etc) by which your ideas are distributed. Again, no one is banning net porn. BUT, we are banning net porn in a publicly
funded libraries. You still have every opportunity to practice the art of porn watching using your private net access. THIS is liberty. welcome.
The issue is what else the filtering technology prevents people from seeing, what qualifies as pornography, and is the pornography in question obscene. These are legitimate issue from a constitutional point of view.
That's not correct. Something protected by the First Amendment is ALWAYS protected.
I wouldn't characterize my position like that at all. Im against "free speach zones" and the like just like you BUT I realize that the first amendment isn't some blank check with which to wave around every time someone says no. the .gov provides libraries. Sure, obscentity has always been a hassle and I side with Bruce and Ferlinghetti every time. BUT, we are not talking about ideals. We are not talking about expression. We are NOT talking about a government that is restricting NET porn in and of itself. Larkin can go home and jack off. Libraries are not the last bastion of net porn.
and, just to be clear, NET PORN is not granite statues OR shakespearean plays. It's porn. It's not art. It's not appropriate for public consumption at locations where the general populace pays the bills because there is no social redeaming value outside of sexual stimulation. You are not being empowered by a ten second clip of some chick getting shot in the face. It is not socially relevant that some chick on the net is 25 but pretends to be 18 because it sells more website memberships. Further, the first amendment doesn't protect the VECTOR by which porn is distributed. If you can find it then point it out. No one banned net porn when installing porn filters. THAT is the fundamental difference between being consistent like the Shogun of USMB and waving the first amendment around like chicken little.
