Porn is ok but safety of children is not.

[ReillyT]

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 First Amendment protects more than political speech. It may evaluate different kinds of speech differently, but other than obscenity, all speech is entitled to protection in varying degrees.

 

[jillian]

Right. Expressions of political views are protected content. I get it. I already conceded that point to Reilly several posts ago.

But filtering something of a non-political nature, that resides in the subjective grey area of pornography, would not violate the 1st Amendment.

I think I see our communication problem. But the First Amendment applies to "ideas" of any kind... not only the political.

 

[ReillyT]

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.

It is not true that the 1st Amendment doesn't protect "vectors" of transmission of ideas. It does. Not all vectors may be evaluated in the same way, but there are protections.

 

[ReillyT]

2. I've mentioned the Miller court several times so far. Who wants to be the maverick and explain how NET PORN passes those three criteria.

The vector thing was already addressed, but with respect to pornography and obscenity, it isn't necessarily the case that because something is pornographic, it therefore must be obscene. In addition, a large part of this discussion must acknowledge that there are gray areas of materials the pornographic nature of which is arguable.

 

[Shogun]

Again, no one is saying anyone has the right to view porn online at the library. We're talking about how to avoid infringing on the first amendment in blocking porn.
you think the extremes of twogirlsonecup.com versus Romeo and Juliette matter?
These are books that have been censored, banned or challenged...
now tell me that some vague "community standard" is the means by which we should control what's out there. THAT'S my issue.... not that you can't look at twogirlsonecup.com while sitting at the library.
http://banned-books.com/bblista-i.html
Pay special attention to Grapes of Wrath.. they didn't like it in Kansas City, MO

uh, YOU must be posting in the wrong thread Jillian. In FACT, why don't you go ahead and review the first 5 pages of Larkin's posts.

it's been the very idea of filtering,, itself, that has been giving me such fun.

and YES, I very much think it matters to compare two chicks and a cup with Romeo and Juliet since ONE would pass the Miller test and the other wouldn't.

Again, this isn't about IDEALS from banned books. Stop trying to hide behind Ferlighnetti. You are not defending the same thing AT ALL. You are NOT defending Lenny Bruce Comedy. Even when THOSE cases were decided it was STILL illegal to show coitus in a public display.

NET porn =/ Howl or any other book you are tempted to hide behind.


COMMUNITY standard? You are goddamn right the community's standard does not promote visual sexual displays in public, ala, netporn.


for crying out loud, Jillian. DONT YOU think that Shakespear is a little more cerebral than your average fucking net porn site?

 

[jillian]

See, now you're just repeating the same thing over and over. I think you're intentionally missing the point.

 

[Care4all]

It is not that easy to always determine what is porn and what isn't. Sometimes it is easy. Sometimes it is not. Is Photo magazine pornagraphic. I can see valid arguments on both sides.

Otherwise, I think I did accurately reflect your position. You think that just because the government provided a forum, that doesn't mean that the government has to allow the total freedom of speech in that forum. The "vector" does matter. The government cannot outlaw the reading of To Kill a Mockingbird in public schools just because you can still pick it up at Borders. The 1st Amendment includes the right to receive, not just to distribute, ideas and art and in some cases pornography. The extent to which the government can restrict certain "vectors" is an open one. There are limits to this restriction with respect to school libraries, and I am sure there are similar restrictions with respect to public libraries. We are just arguing about what those restrictions (against limiting the right to receive expression) might be allowable.

Am I allowed to walk topless on a Public Street, it is a form of expression and a Public Street?

Can you swim in the nude on a Public beach with children, it is a public beach?

Why should a Public Library loaded with children who can see the female or male nakedness on someone's screen be any different?

Care

 

[manifold]

The First Amendment protects more than political speech. It may evaluate different kinds of speech differently, but other than obscenity, all speech is entitled to protection in varying degrees.

I think you're confusing issues here.

Yes, the 1st Amendment covers more than political speech. However, according your own admission and citation, when it comes to decisions about what a publicly funded forum will allow and disallow, it has only been definitively decided that disallowing something specifically due to political content, is a 1st Amendment violation.

 

[manifold]

I think I see our communication problem. But the First Amendment applies to "ideas" of any kind... not only the political.

See my previous reply to Reilly.

 

[mattskramer]

No personal attack or offence intended, but don’t you people ever “come up for air”? Don’t you do anything else? My last post for this thread was little over 2 hours ago. Since then, I had some things to do (house work, eat, do some academic research and job-related research, spend time with my wife, etc.) I return to see over 106 new posts to this thread (over 6 pages of new comments) all within less than 3 hours.

 

[ReillyT]

Am I allowed to walk topless on a Public Street, it is a form of expression and a Public Street?

Can you swim in the nude on a Public beach with children, it is a public beach?

Why should a Public Library loaded with children who can see even the female or male nakedness on someone's screen be any different?

Care

No to 1 and 2, although I am not sure why they don't get some protection as expression. I am sure there is case law on this. I just don't know.

I am not sure that it is different. I think it is an open question. However, I can see arguments for why it is different. The first and foremost reason being that nudity can be, but need not always be, obscene. It can be presented in informational ways and in artistic ways. The key is to balance out the protection of children with the rights of adults to receive this kind of expression. By blocking internet access in libraries, you can end up preventing adults from receiving artistic and informational expression that would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment. I have no problem with setting up adult only computer banks in a restricted part of the library. The problem is what you do if that is either not an option or not desired by the entity. How do you balance the rights of adults to receive expression and the need to insulate children? Additionally, what kind of expression exactly gets filtered out? It is a tough issue.

 

[Shogun]

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?

You are right.. there are two other peices of criteria for NET PORN to fail. Are we ready to address that yet?

I've stated that if programs need to be fine tuned then so be it. But, you are not RESTRICTED from internet material just because you cant view it at the library. Again, the library doesn't have a monopoly on the internet and NET PORN is hardly arguable as something that the public should provide for those who can't afford their own hookup.

 

[Shogun]

So when China filters it's internet it's not doing a thing wrong?

Okie dokie.

CHINA is not the united states nor is it bound by OUR constitution.


weak, jillian.

 

[jillian]

CHINA is not the united states nor is it bound by OUR constitution.


weak, jillian.

maybe you think more of the decision the librarian will make about what to filter out than I do.

 

[ReillyT]

I think you're confusing issues here.

Yes, the 1st Amendment covers more than political speech. However, according your own admission and citation, when it comes to decisions about what a publicly funded forum will allow and disallow, it has only been definitively decided that disallowing something specifically due to political content, is a 1st Amendment violation.

I only know that books can't be removed from high school libraries for political or partisan reasons. The protections of the First Amendment might go much further even with respect to high school libraries, and they may go much further with respect to public libraries. That was just the case that I found after searching for a couple of minutes. That was only meant to demonstrate that the 1st Amendment does limit the government even in government provided forums. I don't know what the precise limits are with respect to different forums.

 

[mattskramer]

Wow! This thread is flying!!!

No personal attack or offence intended, but don’t you people ever “come up for air”? Don’t you do anything else? My last post for this thread was little over 2 hours ago. Since then, I had some things to do (house work, eat, do some academic research and job-related research, spend time with my wife, etc.) I return to see over 106 new posts to this thread (over 6 pages of new comments) all within less than 3 hours.

 

[Care4all]

No to 1 and 2, although I am not sure why they don't get some protection as expression. I am sure there is case law on this. I just don't know.

I am not sure that it is different. I think it is an open question. However, I can see arguments for why it is different. The first and foremost reason being that nudity can be, but need not always be, obscene. It can be presented in informational ways and in artistic ways. The key is to balance out the protection of children with the rights of adults to receive this kind of expression. By blocking internet access in libraries, you can end up preventing adults from receiving artistic and informational expression that would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment. I have no problem with setting up adult only computer banks in a restricted part of the library. The problem is what you do if that is either not an option or not desired by the entity. How do you balance the rights of adults to receive expression and the need to insulate children? Additionally, what kind of expression exactly gets filtered out? It is a tough issue.

in general, a library's art, is not put on display but on shelves, as a museums on walls in plain view*? understand the naked body may be art, but copulating and getting head is not something that a Library should be compelled to provide the viewing of with my tax dollars

 

[ReillyT]

You are right.. there are two other peices of criteria for NET PORN to fail. Are we ready to address that yet?

We can, but frankly the community standards criteria is so amorphous I wouldn't even know where to start or how to evaluate it. It is a silly criteria.

I've stated that if programs need to be fine tuned then so be it. But, you are not RESTRICTED from internet material just because you cant view it at the library. Again, the library doesn't have a monopoly on the internet and NET PORN is hardly arguable as something that the public should provide for those who can't afford their own hookup.

That is the question. The government is definitely prohibited from inhibiting certain kinds of expression in certain vectors (see school libraries). The question is how far this prohibition goes. I don't know the answer, but I think there are valid arguments on both sides with respect to the library issue.

Additionally (just to add another layer of complexity), when we are discussing fundamental rights like the First Amendment, the government also has to employ the least restrictive means to accomplish its compelling interest. Even if we assume that protecting children from pornography is a compelling interest under the circumstances, is filter technology the least restrictive means? Are there other ways to accomplish the goal and still allow unlimited access to the internet for adults?

 

[Shogun]

It is not that easy to always determine what is porn and what isn't. Sometimes it is easy. Sometimes it is not. Is Photo magazine pornagraphic. I can see valid arguments on both sides.

Otherwise, I think I did accurately reflect your position. You think that just because the government provided a forum, that doesn't mean that the government has to allow the total freedom of speech in that forum. The "vector" does matter. The government cannot outlaw the reading of To Kill a Mockingbird in public schools just because you can still pick it up at Borders. The 1st Amendment includes the right to receive, not just to distribute, ideas and art and in some cases pornography. The extent to which the government can restrict certain "vectors" is an open one. There are limits to this restriction with respect to school libraries, and I am sure there are similar restrictions with respect to public libraries. We are just arguing about what those restrictions (against limiting the right to receive expression) might be allow.

uh, can the government restrict Lolita from public high schools, dude? What about The Joy of Sex? I love how you people cling to Mockingbird because of it's VOCABULARY but don't even try to reach into the PORNOGRAPHIC pile of literature.

Besides, do you think Mockingbird would be similarly available to your arguement if someone in the book got fucked in the ass? and LIKED it?


Ever read HOWL from a HS library? Is it a slight agaisnt your first amendment rights if every HS in America doesn't have Lolita, JOS, and Howl? No, your vector defense doesn't work and you can't prove it Constitutionally, through amendment or precedent, anyway. How many public libraries have YOU seen stock the entire back catalogue of Busty Magazine?

When does throwing a pie in the face of a speaker become free speach, dude? This is why it's abusing the first amendment to pretend it's a blank check. it's not.

it does NOT protect the right to recieve; ONLY express. cite specific cases otherwise since my opinion filter is getting worn out with this thread.

 

[Ravi]

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.

If someone requests it, I'm pretty sure the library can not deny the request because they deem it offensive.

If porn is considered harmful, it should be banned from any public venue including the library and the corner convenience store. I have no problem with that. Just like you can ban smokers because you deem second hand smoke harmful. I imagine a weekly exposure to porn can cause more harm than a weekly exposure to a cigarette.