Porn is ok but safety of children is not.

[Shogun]

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.

Oh it's available. But, are you talking about HS or Public?



And, just for you I am going to post my Favorite Ginsberg peom from Howl.


America
Allen Ginsberg

America I've given you all and now I'm nothing.
America two dollars and twenty-seven cents January 17, 1956.
I can't stand my own mind.
America when will we end the human war?
Go fuck yourself with your atom bomb
I don't feel good don't bother me.
I won't write my poem till I'm in my right mind.
America when will you be angelic?
When will you take off your clothes?
When will you look at yourself through the grave?
When will you be worthy of your million Trotskyites?
America why are your libraries full of tears?
America when will you send your eggs to India?
I'm sick of your insane demands.
When can I go into the supermarket and buy what I need with my good looks?
America after all it is you and I who are perfect not the next world.
Your machinery is too much for me.
You made me want to be a saint.
There must be some other way to settle this argument.
Burroughs is in Tangiers I don't think he'll come back it's sinister.
Are you being sinister or is this some form of practical joke?
I'm trying to come to the point.
I refuse to give up my obsession.
America stop pushing I know what I'm doing.
America the plum blossoms are falling.
I haven't read the newspapers for months, everyday somebody goes on trial for
murder.
America I feel sentimental about the Wobblies.
America I used to be a communist when I was a kid and I'm not sorry.
I smoke marijuana every chance I get.
I sit in my house for days on end and stare at the roses in the closet.
When I go to Chinatown I get drunk and never get laid.
My mind is made up there's going to be trouble.
You should have seen me reading Marx.
My psychoanalyst thinks I'm perfectly right.
I won't say the Lord's Prayer.
I have mystical visions and cosmic vibrations.
America I still haven't told you what you did to Uncle Max after he came over
from Russia.

I'm addressing you.
Are you going to let our emotional life be run by Time Magazine?
I'm obsessed by Time Magazine.
I read it every week.
Its cover stares at me every time I slink past the corner candystore.
I read it in the basement of the Berkeley Public Library.
It's always telling me about responsibility. Businessmen are serious. Movie
producers are serious. Everybody's serious but me.
It occurs to me that I am America.
I am talking to myself again.

Asia is rising against me.
I haven't got a chinaman's chance.
I'd better consider my national resources.
My national resources consist of two joints of marijuana millions of genitals
an unpublishable private literature that goes 1400 miles and hour and
twentyfivethousand mental institutions.
I say nothing about my prisons nor the millions of underpriviliged who live in
my flowerpots under the light of five hundred suns.
I have abolished the whorehouses of France, Tangiers is the next to go.
My ambition is to be President despite the fact that I'm a Catholic.

America how can I write a holy litany in your silly mood?
I will continue like Henry Ford my strophes are as individual as his
automobiles more so they're all different sexes
America I will sell you strophes $2500 apiece $500 down on your old strophe
America free Tom Mooney
America save the Spanish Loyalists
America Sacco & Vanzetti must not die
America I am the Scottsboro boys.
America when I was seven momma took me to Communist Cell meetings they
sold us garbanzos a handful per ticket a ticket costs a nickel and the
speeches were free everybody was angelic and sentimental about the
workers it was all so sincere you have no idea what a good thing the party
was in 1935 Scott Nearing was a grand old man a real mensch Mother
Bloor made me cry I once saw Israel Amter plain. Everybody must have
been a spy.
America you don're really want to go to war.
America it's them bad Russians.
Them Russians them Russians and them Chinamen. And them Russians.
The Russia wants to eat us alive. The Russia's power mad. She wants to take
our cars from out our garages.
Her wants to grab Chicago. Her needs a Red Reader's Digest. her wants our
auto plants in Siberia. Him big bureaucracy running our fillingstations.
That no good. Ugh. Him makes Indians learn read. Him need big black *******.
Hah. Her make us all work sixteen hours a day. Help.
America this is quite serious.
America this is the impression I get from looking in the television set.
America is this correct?
I'd better get right down to the job.
It's true I don't want to join the Army or turn lathes in precision parts
factories, I'm nearsighted and psychopathic anyway.
America I'm putting my queer shoulder to the wheel.

http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/america.html

 

[mattskramer]

According to standing Miller court precedence? no, it's not.

You are quoting from Lenny Bruce's fandango with undercover cops sent to bust his ass for COMEDY, by the way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California

In his concurring opinion in Jacobellis, Justice Potter Stewart, holding that Roth protected all obscenity except "hard-core pornography," famously wrote, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

 

[manifold]

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

Was this the question in question?


I don't think it is SO harmful to be honest. But I also don't see how it can reasonably be considered a 1st Amendment violation for libraries to censor it from their internet access. I'm still waiting for someone to make a compelling case that it is.

If it makes you happy, fine, I'll concede that if your library doesn't track down Mockingbird at your request, they're really really bad guys and infringing on your rights.

And now back to the practical matter at hand...pornography. If what the FCC does isn't a violation of the 1st Amendment, how could applying the same standards to the internet be considered one? And now I'm not talking about just libraries, I'm talking a serious big brother crack down. If free porn was banned from the internet completely, I submit that precedent exists suggesting that it would not violate the first amendment. I might not like it, believe me I wouldn't, but where is my logic flawed?

 

[ReillyT]

This is why i've been explicit in making it clear what I've been talking about regarding NET PORN. review the thread and consider the URLs that I have posted and tell me if you think they would pass miller. Again, THIS isn't about fine tuning filters. That's a given. However, this is still no excuse to nix filters when you ALWAYS have the option to get your own internet account.


and, when Miller is applies to LITERATURE, I agree.. it's hazy according to perspective. But I could post some net porn in this thread and YOU wuldn't hesitate to call it what it is. Why? Because NET PORN does not offer IDEALS like Howl, Lolita, or JOS.

I don't think anyone has maintained that material obscene under Miller should be allowed. Adults don't even have a right to it. However, with respect to the stuff that isn't obscene under Miller but would still be caught by the filters, this is where there is a problem. IF this forum (public libraries) is protected under the 1st Amendment in a robust manner, then it does provide an excuse to nix filters even though you have the option to get your own internet account.

***That is where Pico is important - the vector matters even if it may be freely available elsewhere. Whether it is actually the rule in this case is for a court to decide.

 

[Shogun]

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.

Are you telling me that the specific quote from the Case YOU mentioned is NOT specifically addressing the act of pulling a book because of it's overt ILLICIT nature? The fact that YOUR source allows an option for pulling PORNOGRAPHIC material without shitting on the first amendment illustrates that, in fact, it's the political IDEALS (and such) that are the motivations that trample the first and NOT obscene material.

Maybe you read it differently but it's not validating your opinion that .gov can't restrict material due to it's OBSCENE nature; rather, specifically addressing the restriction based on POLITICAL ideals and the like.


banning porn at the public library is HARDLY based on politics OR the Ideals that twogirlsonecup offers.

 

[Shogun]

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

indeed I can. Even when a court justice writes about how pulling profane material doesn't trample anyone's first amendment rights.

Do you want to dissect this case her and now?

 

[ReillyT]

Are you telling me that the specific quote from the Case YOU mentioned is NOT specifically addressing the act of pulling a book because of it's overt ILLICIT nature? The fact that YOUR source allows an option for pulling PORNOGRAPHIC material without shitting on the first amendment illustrates that, in fact, it's the political IDEALS (and such) that are the motivations that trample the first and NOT obscene material.

Maybe you read it differently but it's not validating your opinion that .gov can't restrict material due to it's OBSCENE nature; rather, specifically addressing the restriction based on POLITICAL ideals and the like.


banning porn at the public library is HARDLY based on politics OR the Ideals that twogirlsonecup offers.

I think Pico would allow a high school library to pull a book (whether obscene or not) just because it isn't educational. That isn't the importance of the case though. The importance of the case is that the government is restricted by the 1st Amendment (to varying degrees based on the venues and materials) even when it provides the forum, and the materials would still remain free to obtain outside the forum.

The question stemming from Pico (and this may have already been answered in another case) is what materials can be banned in what venues, and how can you go about banning them (lest the means be overbroad). These are the issue in the internet/public library example.

 

[Ravi]

Was this the question in question?


I don't think it is SO harmful to be honest. But I also don't see how it can reasonably be considered a 1st Amendment violation for libraries to censor it for their internet access. I'm still waiting for someone to make a compelling case that it is.

If it makes you happy, fine, I'll concede that if your library doesn't track down Mockingbird at your request, they're really really bad guys and infringing on your rights.

And now back to the practical matter at hand...pornography. If what the FCC does isn't a violation of the 1st Amendment, how could applying the same standards to the internet be considered one? And now I'm not talking about just libraries, I'm talking a serious big brother crack down. If free porn was banned from the internet completely, I submit that precedent exists suggesting that it would not violate the first amendment. I might not like it, believe me I wouldn't, but where is my logic flawed?

I don't see how it can't be considered a first amendment violation and am also waiting for someone to make the case. I think the FCC does violate the first amendment so I have no answer for you on that one.

How is banning free porn from the internet not a violation of the first amendment?

And if you don't consider porn harmful, why does it even matter...why go to all the expense to filter it out when as far as I can tell it isn't really a problem at anyone's library.

 

[Ravi]

Thanks for the poem, Shog. I'm so touched that I'm crying as I type this.

 

[ReillyT]

indeed I can. Even when a court justice writes about how pulling profane material doesn't trample anyone's first amendment rights.

Do you want to dissect this case her and now?

Actually, the Court stated that pulling profane materials wouldn't trample on the First Amendment rights of high school students, but students have always had a reduced level of freedoms at school. One would think that public libraries may provide greater protection.

I don't really want to dissect the case, as I can't imagine it will be that much fun. However, I am willing to if you like.

 

[manifold]

I don't see how it can't be considered a first amendment violation and am also waiting for someone to make the case. I think the FCC does violate the first amendment so I have no answer for you on that one.

And I think gun control laws violate the 2nd Amendment and drug laws violate the 9th and 10th Amendments, but there you have it.

How is banning free porn from the internet not a violation of the first amendment?

Precedent

And if you don't consider porn harmful, why does it even matter...why go to all the expense to filter it out when as far as I can tell it isn't really a problem at anyone's library.

I'm willing to compromise and accept that it is potentially harmful to children.

 

[Shogun]

I will try to go through this one more time. After you read it, repeat it several times until you understand it.

1. Obscene material under Miller is clearly not protected.

2. The Miller standard is hazy and in many cases it will not be clear what is or is not obscene under Miller.

3. Libarians are ill-suited to make the Miller determination in borderline cases (especially because they will be making determinations of constitutional rights).

4. Filters will exclude many things that are not obscene under Miller.

Do you need to run to fucking SHAKESPEAR for that to be remotley true?

what is so fucking hazy about Miller's application to NET PORN? You know, NET PORN? The shit we are DISCUSSING even if you need to bait and switch yourself some Mockingbird and Bard tales?

If NET PORN doesn't pass MILLER, and you admit that obscene material isn't protected, then you have no basis from witch to even argue anymore. We aren't talking about banning Catcher or Grapes fo Wrath, dude.

AND, according to PICO, librarians have every right to pull pervasively vulgar material. WHOSE words are PERVASIVELY VULGAR? mine? or the COURTS?



Brennan concludes the plurality opinion with a discussion of the extent of the school board's authority to remove books from the school library:

With respect to the present case, the message of these precedents is clear. Petitioners rightly possess significant discretion to determine the content of their school libraries. But that discretion may not be exercised in a narrowly partisan or political manner. If a Democratic school board, motivated by party affiliation, ordered the removal of all books written by or in favor of Republicans, few would doubt that the order violated the constitutional rights of the students denied access to those books. The same conclusion would surely apply if an all-white school board, motivated by racial animus, decided to remove all books authored by blacks or advocating racial equality and integration. Our Constitution does not permit the official suppression of ideas. Thus whether petitioners' removal of books from their school libraries denied respondents their First Amendment rights depends upon the motivation behind petitioners' actions. If petitioners intended by their removal decision to deny respondents access to ideas with which petitioners disagreed, and if this intent was the decisive factor in petitioners' decision,then petitioners have exercised their discretion in violation of the Constitution. To permit such intentions to control official actions would be to encourage the precise sort of officially prescribed orthodoxy unequivocally condemned in Barnette. 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.

As noted earlier, nothing in our decision today affects in any way the discretion of a local school board to choose books to add to the libraries of their schools. Because we are concerned in this case with the suppression of ideas, our holding [457 U.S. 853, 872] today affects only the discretion to remove books. In brief, we hold that local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books and seek by their removal to "prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion." West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S., at 642 . Such purposes stand inescapably condemned by our precedents.


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

 

[Ravi]

And I think gun control laws violate the 2nd Amendment and drug laws violate the 9th and 10th Amendments, but there you have it.

So you've given up on civil rights? Sad.

Precedent

What precedent?

I'm willing to compromise and accept that it is potentially harmful to children.

Then it shouldn't be allowed in any public venue, just like cigarette smoke.

It's actually probably true that it is harmful to everyone but I have no desire to ban it.

 

[Shogun]

I agree that hardcore pornography will rarely if ever fall into the gray area. Filter technology will also capture stuff that does fall into the gray area. That is a problem.

not really. I don't recall watching semi-porn being criteria for which we all need to survive. After all, if you can't get it at the library you can always get your own access.

 

[Shogun]

This is a gray area. A Playboy photo spread from the 60s with an accompanying interview of Arthur Miller will, I suspect, rarely be determined to be obscene under Miller (referring to the photo spread here, not the interview). Not obscene... but should it be excluded? On what basis? Who makes the determination? What about erotic literature in the magazine? What if the erotic literature has a political message within it?

while the INTERVIEW may not be obscene the naked women still are. So, if stephen king publishes his early work in Juggs magazine is it appropriate to insist on exposure to both? rediculous.


Again, keep the WORDS and ideas and nix the images. reading doesn't require a stiffy.

 

[Ravi]

while the INTERVIEW may not be obscene the naked women still are. So, if stephen king publishes his early work in Juggs magazine is it appropriate to insist on exposure to both? rediculous.


Again, keep the WORDS and ideas and nix the images. reading doesn't require a stiffy.

I doubt anything published in Playboy in the sixties would now be considered obscene.

 

[manifold]

So you've given up on civil rights? Sad.

What precedent?

FCC

Then it shouldn't be allowed in any public venue, just like cigarette smoke.

Works for me. Not allowed anywhere that allows children. I can live with that.

 

[Shogun]

What if the comedy is sexually graphic in nature? How sexually graphic must it be? Who decides? How does filter software deal with these issues and how can we trust software not to exclude quality expression?

Lenny Bruce WAS a perverted man who opened the door for my favorites (Fox, Pryor and early Murpy). BUT, you wanna kow what he WASN'T doing? whipping his cock out and fucking someone on stage as is what is the content of NET PORN. Do you think his legacy would be quote the same if his "offenses" were obscene actions instead of obscene words?

 

[manifold]

I doubt anything published in Playboy in the sixties would now be considered obscene.

Still wouldn't be allowed to be shown on television.

 

[Ravi]

Works for me. Not allowed anywhere that allows children. I can live with that.

Then we seem to agree.

I am sooooooooooooooooooooooo done with this topic.

Have a good one.