Porn is ok but safety of children is not.

[Shogun]

Not getting your point.

How familair are you with Ferlinghetti and Bruce? I'm suggesting you dive into the specifics before assuming everything is censorship.

 

[mattskramer]

maybe I can comprehend that net porn isn't at all simlar to works by the great fucking bard.

I think that it all comes down to where we want libraries to draw the line. Some tax payers want libraries to be more inclusive. Some people want more material to me excluded. There are shades of gray. I think there was a famous supreme court judge who once basically said that he could not define obscenity precisely but that he would know it if he saw it. Tell me that such is not personal and subjective.

 

[Ravi]

And what if they just say, "sorry, we don't carry that title?"

All libraries exchange books. It exists in a library somewhere in the country.

 

[Ravi]

I conceded that my post could have led you to the wrong conclusion concernig the point I was trying to make. I've since clarified if you care to take the time to read the rest of the thread.

I did. You said on the local level you'd support legislation.

If porn is so harmful why are you not calling to remove it from all public venues?

 

[Shogun]

I don't know about Lolita. I don't know if it has ever been litigated. The point isn't that this or that can be banned. The point is that "vectors" (although I would prefer the word "forum") do matter, and the government is restricted by the 1st Amendment as to what channels it can interfere with.

No, that's EXACTLY the point. Lolita, Howl, and the JOY OF SEX are not appropriate for particular VENUES. Thus, we don't see these kinds of works conflicting with "constitutional rights" when they are not made available in public schools. This is why the Mockingbird example is so funny. We aren't even TALKING about cursing and racism. WE are talking about obscene material that would NOT pass the Miller court standard. Again, could you use Mockingbird of someone got fucked in the ass and liked it?

 

[ReillyT]

SILLY, eh? well, thanks for your opinion. Now, did you want to address the precedent of the Miller court regarding obscenity or not?

I know the Miller case. What would you like me to address? I don't know what your question is.

so, what HS did YOU go to that had the joy of Sex available to 15 year olds? You don't think the .gov CANT prohibit hustler mag from the high school mag rack? Come on, dude. You are not defending Ulyses here.

I also don't know what you are addressing here. Vectors are protected to varying degrees. The question of whether a school can keep a particular book out of a high school library is a legal one, and would probably have to be handled on a case by case basis. Clearly, they can keep out Hustler, and can't keep out Mark Twain. Most cases fall somewhere in between.

sure. Nixing internet access. The net is a great resource but it's no more required, CONSTITUTIONALLY, than any other method of communication or technology.

Is pushing free access to net porn on public grounds worth it?

I think a library could completely get rid of interent access. I don't think there is anything wrong with that from a legal standpoint. That isn't a viewpoint-specific decision. All expression would be treated equally if you got rid of the net.

I am arguing from a legal standpoint, not a personal one. Filtering doesn't trouble me a great deal personally.

 

[mattskramer]

No, that's EXACTLY the point. Lolita, Howl, and the JOY OF SEX are not appropriate for particular VENUES. Thus, we don't see these kinds of works conflicting with "constitutional rights" when they are not made available in public schools. This is why the Mockingbird example is so funny. We aren't even TALKING about cursing and racism. WE are talking about obscene material that would NOT pass the Miller court standard. Again, could you use Mockingbird of someone got fucked in the ass and liked it?

Well. I think that they should be included (at least in an adult section) at the public college level.

 

[manifold]

All libraries exchange books. It exists in a library somewhere in the country.

They don't exchange books with every other library in the country.

Again, as a simple matter of pragmatism, I think you'd have a difficult time proving that your local library's inability to supply you with a copy of Mockingbird constitutes a violation of your 1st Amendment rights. And even if you could prove it, what would be the remedy? Force them to buy you a book? Are you really going to go through the time and trouble when you could just buy your own for $6.95?

I really think that pragmatism is kryptonite around these parts sometimes.

 

[ReillyT]

No, that's EXACTLY the point. Lolita, Howl, and the JOY OF SEX are not appropriate for particular VENUES. Thus, we don't see these kinds of works conflicting with "constitutional rights" when they are not made available in public schools. This is why the Mockingbird example is so funny. We aren't even TALKING about cursing and racism. WE are talking about obscene material that would NOT pass the Miller court standard. Again, could you use Mockingbird of someone got fucked in the ass and liked it?

You are confusing two different issues.

One, can the government regulate in unlimited fashion in government provided vectors? No, it cannot.

Two, can some books or materials be prohibited in certain vectors? Yes, they can.

However, 1 + 2 does not = people have no right to non-obscene materials in public libraries.

As for Miller, I agree that stuff that would not pass the Miller test can be prohibited, whether for children or for adults. However, in many cases, it is not clear what will pass the Miller test and what won't. Additionally, filters will keep out many things that would not be obscene under the Miller test. They are overbroad in their application, and this is the constitutional concern with them. If they only restricted materials that would be classified obscene under Miller, there would be no problem. However, Miller is so hazy a test that it would take a judge and a couple months of discovery to determine whether a borderline case satisfies Miller.

 

[Ravi]

No, that's EXACTLY the point. Lolita, Howl, and the JOY OF SEX are not appropriate for particular VENUES. Thus, we don't see these kinds of works conflicting with "constitutional rights" when they are not made available in public schools. This is why the Mockingbird example is so funny. We aren't even TALKING about cursing and racism. WE are talking about obscene material that would NOT pass the Miller court standard. Again, could you use Mockingbird of someone got fucked in the ass and liked it?

They aren't considered educational so why would they be at a school library?

I'm pretty sure Lolita and Joy of Sex are available through the library system. No idea what Howl is but I'm gonna guess it isn't available.

 

[Ravi]

They don't exchange books with every other library in the country.

Again, as a simple matter of pragmatism, I think you'd have a difficult time proving that your local library's inability to supply you with a copy of Mockingbird constitutes a violation of your 1st Amendment rights. And even if you could prove it, what would be the remedy? Force them to buy you a book? Are you really going to go through the time and trouble when you could just buy your own for $6.95?

I really think that pragmatism is kryptonite around these parts sometimes.

They do actually if they belong to the ALA. I'm almost positive every public library belongs to the ALA.

So yes, my local library cannot refuse to provide me with Mockingbird.

 

[manifold]

I did. You said on the local level you'd support legislation.

If porn is so harmful why are you not calling to remove it from all public venues?

Thank you for removing any remaining shreds of doubt. I am now certain that you are being intentionally dense for comedic effect.

It's not really working though, but I still encourage you to keep trying.

 

[Ravi]

Thank you for removing any remaining shreds of doubt. I am now certain that you are being intentionally dense for comedic effect.

It's not really working though, but I still encourage you to keep trying.

What post of yours did I miss? You admitted that legislation isn't needed to protect first amendment rights?

 

[Shogun]

Scroll up. The case is Island Trees School District v. Pico, 457 US 853 (1982). School Districts (the gov't) cannot remove books from high school libraries because the school district disagrees with the political content of the books. It is irrelevant whether the books can be obtained elsewhere.

Buddy, you might wanna reread that case.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_Trees_School_District_v._Pico

On the other hand, respondents implicitly concede that an unconstitutional motivation would not be demonstrated if it were shown that petitioners had decided to remove the books at issue because those books were pervasively vulgar. Tr. of Oral Arg. 36. And again, respondents concede that if it were demonstrated that the removal decision was based solely upon the "educational suitability" of the books in question, then their removal would be "perfectly permissible." Id., at 53. In other words, in respondents' view such motivations, if decisive of petitioners' actions, would not carry the danger of an official suppression of ideas, and thus would not violate respondents' First Amendment rights.

 

[Shogun]

I just told you. Look at the Pico case.

With respect to Miller, I am not sure what you are asking. You listed the criteria yourself.

If pico is the only thing you are reflecting on your arguement is in serious trouble.

 

[manifold]

They do actually if they belong to the ALA. I'm almost positive every public library belongs to the ALA.

So yes, my local library cannot refuse to provide me with Mockingbird.

Fine...

...and three years later..."Sorry Ms. Ravi, it's still not here yet. Must be an administrative glitch. I'll have to look into it. In the mean time, can I interest you in the latest Ann Coulter offering? We have 16 copies."

 

[manifold]

What post of yours did I miss? You admitted that legislation isn't needed to protect first amendment rights?

More than once.

 

[Shogun]

I hope you aren't trying to make a case that porn magazines are somehow educational.

no. thats EXACTLY the point Im TRYING to make when challenging anyone to convey how NET PORN passes the three criteria of abscenity from the Miller Court. It's not, in any way shape or form, an expression of ideals like Howl, Bruce comedy or any other piece of Lit.

 

[ReillyT]

Buddy, you might wanna reread that case.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_Trees_School_District_v._Pico

On the other hand, respondents implicitly concede that an unconstitutional motivation would not be demonstrated if it were shown that petitioners had decided to remove the books at issue because those books were pervasively vulgar. Tr. of Oral Arg. 36. And again, respondents concede that if it were demonstrated that the removal decision was based solely upon the "educational suitability" of the books in question, then their removal would be "perfectly permissible." Id., at 53. In other words, in respondents' view such motivations, if decisive of petitioners' actions, would not carry the danger of an official suppression of ideas, and thus would not violate respondents' First Amendment rights.

I read that. You miss the point of the case with respect to the question at hand. Can the government prohibit certain materials in school libraries? Yes, no one is disputing that, just as the Respondent in the case didn't. Does that fact that they are school libraries mean that they aren't bound by the 1st Amendment (your so called vector argument)? No. (See relevance for our issue here?)

The fact that these books can be purchased at Borders doesn't provide the government with the ability to ban them in this venue.

The case stands for a particular proposition. Understand it with respect to that proposition.

 

[ReillyT]

If pico is the only thing you are reflecting on your arguement is in serious trouble.

Not if you are capable of understanding the reasoning of Pico and why it is relevant.