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.
in general, a library's art, is not put on display but on shelves, as a museums? 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
I only know that books can't be removed from high school libraries for political or partisan reasons.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
prove it. YOU are asserting something that I am calling shennanigans on. Post your source material and applicable court cases or stop insisting that the first amendment protects the vectors by which your expresstion is posted.
If you can do this you may very well have just made the FCC illegal.
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.
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.
See my previous reply to Reilly.
with the least amount of cost and burden on to the taxpayer and citizen also, you would think in this day and age, where the money of ours is short....
also the consideration of use.....do you pay thousands for a private room for adults only for only one patron that is insisting on getting his porn?
do you want to attract pedophiles to a children's environment should be considered also....
afterall, we are the rulers of the gvt government....our sovereignty rules it..... it, does not rule us.
care
So you were being intellectually honest when you said you'd support legislation to unban it?
maybe you think more of the decision the librarian will make about what to filter out than I do.
no shit. I didn't ask if net porn was obscene. I already know that. IM asking you for the specific criteria that NETPORN must pass according to the SCOTUS standard of the Miller court.
and no, the Vector thingwasn't already addressed. I expect more than your word and opinion when makeing assumptions about constitutional coverage.
prove it, dude.
Gray areas? sure. NET PORN is not gray.
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.
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.
Gray areas? sure. NET PORN is not gray.
