Porn is ok but safety of children is not.

[Ravi]

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

Bet?

 

[manifold]

Then we seem to agree.

I am sooooooooooooooooooooooo done with this topic.

Have a good one.

I hear ya!

And ditto.

 

[manifold]

Bet?

Sure, but I'd need to specify broadcast television.

 

[ReillyT]

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.

Just repeat those four points I gave you a few more times until you understand it. The arguable problem with filtering is that it blocks stuff that isn't obscene as well as stuff that is obscene. Blocking obscene stuff = good. Blocking non-obscene stuff = problematic.

This is very simple Shogun. I know you can climb this mountain.

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

You are missing a very important word. "School" The case involves primary and secondary children. Children do not have the same freedoms as adults, especially at school. That is long-established.

It remains an open question whether the same standard applies to adults. I can think of many reasons that it would not, but I don't know. I have never seen a case on it - although I am reasonably sure that there must be at least Appeals Court cases on the issue.

That aside, the important thing to take from Pico is that governments cannot shut down (inhibit) even government provided vectors just because the materials are freely available elsewhere - at least not as a general proposition.

 

[ReillyT]

while the INTERVIEW may not be obscene the naked women still are.

Not necessarily. I doubt any court would find Playboy to be obscene under Miller. Well, maybe in southern Ohio or Kentucky, but not outside of that.

Here is blurb about the application of Miller.

In practice, pornography showing genitalia and sexual acts is not de facto obscene according to the Miller test. For instance, in 2000 a jury in Provo, Utah, took only a few minutes to clear Larry Peterman, owner of a Movie Buffs, in Utah County, Utah, a region which had often boasted of being one of the most conservative areas in the US. Researchers had shown that guests at the local Marriott Hotel were disproportionately large consumers of pay-per-view pornographic material, obtaining far more material that way than the store was distributing [5][6].

The advent of the Internet has made this definition more difficult to maintain: as material published on a web server in one place can be read by a person residing anywhere else, there is a question as to which jurisdiction should apply. The pending case United States of America v. Extreme Associates includes some content delivered purely over the Internet and may clarify the situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

 

[Shogun]

What about them?




As you defined vectors, yes they are. If I recall, you said that as long as the material could still be legally be obtained somewhere (e.g., at home on the net, or at that Borders), the government wasn't prohibited from banning the material in a certain vectors (e.g., the public library), especially a government provided vector. That is simply false as a general proposition. It is true that the government can prohibit certain materials in certain vectors. However, vectors themselves are protected to varying degrees. Just because Mark Twain can be purchased at Borders doesn't mean that the school can take it off the library shelves. Yes, certain speech receives greater protection in school libraries than others (big surprise there), but gov't vectors are still subject to the First Amendment.

By the way, can we use the word "forums" now?

vector
5. A course or direction, as of an airplane.
http://www.answers.com/topic/vector?cat=technology

how wold you describe the directional flow and path of relevant information? I used vector. so fucking sue me.


and yes, if MARK TWAIN wrote about "pervasively vulgar" ala Huck fucking Tom in the goat ass, you woulnd't see Twain in HS any more than you see Alan Ginsberg's poetry. Pico specifially illustrates this.

As far as having the option to get the same info elsewhere, that is the reason I don't see this as a first amendment issue. You are not being banned from any material; you are being banned from consuming obscene material in a public forum. Which, i'll remind you, is why we have people getting busted watching porn in other public venues


Police cite man for watching porn in car
http://www.boston.com/news/odd/articles/2007/11/12/police_cite_man_for_watching_porn_in_car/

 

[ReillyT]

As far as having the option to get the same info elsewhere, that is the reason I don't see this as a first amendment issue.

All of the books banned by the library in Pico were still freely available in the public realm generally. It was still a First Amendment issue. THAT is why Pico is important. The standards for school children and adults are probably not comparable, although I suppose it is possible.

 

[Shogun]

Do they? Many colleges provide wifi to the students. In fact many high schools do as well. How do you limit access to porn when someone is using their own computer but the school's internet access?

not much on the technology, eh Ravi?

Ever hear of Network group policies?

Install filter at the pipeline rather than at each station and require specific Netrowk Policy criteria.


http://technet.microsoft.com/Message-Error.htm?aspxerrorpath=/en-us/magazine/cc160780.aspx

 

[Ravi]

not much on the technology, eh Ravi?

Ever hear of Network group policies?

Install filter at the pipeline rather than at each station and require specific Netrowk Policy criteria.


http://technet.microsoft.com/Message-Error.htm?aspxerrorpath=/en-us/magazine/cc160780.aspx

Ah...no, I don't know much about it.

 

[Ravi]

Sure, but I'd need to specify broadcast television.

Chicken.

btw, I have sigs turned off but I saw yours while lurking.

Artard.

 

[Shogun]

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."

my bad.


I'll have to review the Trials of Lenny Bruce tonight. I could have sworn an undercover cop said the same thing about one of his performances when relaying the material to the judge.

 

[ReillyT]

Goodnight Shogun. I am in London and it is late here. It was nice chatting with you and have a nice night.

 

[Shogun]

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.

since IM talking about NET PORN rather than anything else that falls between the cracks of Miller then so be it. What i'm refering to doesn't pass miller.

and again, I don't consider this a first amendment issue BECAUSE of it's availability elsewhere regardless of Pico. Pico only validates the motivaton of pulling material for the sake of it's PORNOGRAPHIC nature despite it's ruling otherwise regarding POLITICAL motivation.

 

[Shogun]

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.

Well, no, it's pretty fucking important since Pico specifically mentions that PORN is distinct from POLITICAL motivation. Thus, the court DID see a worhtwhile public interest in nixing the public porn DESPITE how Pico was decided regarding POLITICAL motives. You may not find it important but I think it's key.

Regarding your questions stemming from Pico, seems to me like they were pretty clear in differentiating political motivations from pornogrphic material. Obscene material that can't pass the Miller test is specifically what IM talking about here.

 

[Shogun]

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.

indeed.. but who the hell brought up Pico as if it supported a similar application to PUBLIC LIBRARIES?


The thing that stands out in Pico, to me at least, is that the court decided that libraries can't pull material for the sake of racial or political discrimination. Fair enough. We all agree on this. Whats more, they make the distinction, SPECIFICALLY, that pulling obscene material does not trample anyones first amendment rights. Net Porn is obscene. It does not pass Miller. Thus, if YOU want to use Pico to suggest that Libraries cannot ban specific material then IM going to continue calling shennanigans since Pico, in fact, specifically mentions that pulling obscene material is NOT trampling first amendment rights. If you use it to support your point them so will I. And, the posted quote is pretty damning to your position.

 

[Shogun]

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

opinions and assholes, Ravi.

 

[Shogun]

Just repeat those four points I gave you a few more times until you understand it. The arguable problem with filtering is that it blocks stuff that isn't obscene as well as stuff that is obscene. Blocking obscene stuff = good. Blocking non-obscene stuff = problematic.

This is very simple Shogun. I know you can climb this mountain.



You are missing a very important word. "School" The case involves primary and secondary children. Children do not have the same freedoms as adults, especially at school. That is long-established.

It remains an open question whether the same standard applies to adults. I can think of many reasons that it would not, but I don't know. I have never seen a case on it - although I am reasonably sure that there must be at least Appeals Court cases on the issue.

That aside, the important thing to take from Pico is that governments cannot shut down (inhibit) even government provided vectors just because the materials are freely available elsewhere - at least not as a general proposition.

No, IM not missing shit. YOU brought this case up as if it supported yo0ur position. Clearly, it doesn't if YOU are NOW going to get caught up on the word SCHOOL.

So, which is it? Is Pico applicable for consideration or not?

And, again, I've BEEN talking about OBSCENE material. Im not even talking about half assed side boob. If the filters need fine tuning then so be it. But, that doesn't reduce the FACT that filters would still be active in order to filter the NET PORN. which, if you recall, i what this thread was about.

 

[Shogun]

Not necessarily. I doubt any court would find Playboy to be obscene under Miller. Well, maybe in southern Ohio or Kentucky, but not outside of that.

Here is blurb about the application of Miller.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

Again, Opinions and asshole, buddy. What you doubt and what is true may not be related.

 

[Shogun]

Not necessarily. I doubt any court would find Playboy to be obscene under Miller. Well, maybe in southern Ohio or Kentucky, but not outside of that.

Here is blurb about the application of Miller.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

Again, Opinions and asshole, buddy. What you doubt and what is true may not be related.

and we are not talking about fucking ART flicks that show a flacid penis. We are talking about the graphic illustration of net porn in which we see human beings fuck for the sole purpose of illiciting a hardon. We are not talking about Art books that sketch nude figures. Unless, of course, those nude figures and are fucking. It's taken every bit of restraint to keep from posting examples of what we all know goddamn well to be true about net porn.

 

[Shogun]

All of the books banned by the library in Pico were still freely available in the public realm generally. It was still a First Amendment issue. THAT is why Pico is important. The standards for school children and adults are probably not comparable, although I suppose it is possible.

So, did you want to tell me if Pico is considerable now? or, only when you use it?