Porn is ok but safety of children is not.

[Shogun]

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

Hey man, I've enjoyed this thread once Larkin took off and you stepped up. Thanks for the lively debate. It's been fun.


Have a great evening!

 

[ReillyT]

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.

I came back for just one post. Pico is clearly applicable, but applicable for what proposition is a separate question.

Schools are different. That is not disputable. It has been the case for a long time with respect to expression, search and seizure, etc. Denying to recognize that fact will not make it go away.

Repeat it with me. Schools are different.

Whether that difference is controlling in this case is an open question (at least to the extent of my knowledge, although it has probably been answered somewhere).

 

[ReillyT]

Hey man, I've enjoyed this thread once Larkin took off and you stepped up. Thanks for the lively debate. It's been fun.


Have a great evening!

Good night Buddy.

 

[speedy35]

We don't allow porn in the BOOKS in the library and the computers should be no different. You want to see porn, do it at home.

 

[AllieBaba]

I know, I don't know what all the hubbub is about.

 

[mattskramer]

We don't allow porn in the BOOKS in the library and the computers should be no different.

Why not?

 

[mattskramer]

I know, I don't know what all the hubbub is about.

Some people like public libraries to be unrestrictive. Similarly, they want universities to be universal in the sense of including every piece of information that they can.

One argument was that if you want porn, buy your own. Well, I could say that if you want a book, go to amazon.com and buy your own.

 

[Ravi]

opinions and assholes, Ravi.

Yeah, everyone has one, even you.

My opinion, I googled around and IMO sixties centerfold porn is soft porn, provocative perhaps, but not obscene. Not something that justifies banning, and by today's standard an art form.

Sadly, there were no sites that glorified the male body in the same way.

 

[Shogun]

Like I said, Ravi.. put it to a vote and see what happens.



and, I still insist, Mr. ReillyT, that if you can use Pico then so can I. Sure, Libraries can't restrict access for the sake of politics and racism (the specifics of Pico) but this isn't about either. In fact, according to pico, pulling material because it is pornographic doesn't subdue anyones constitutional rights; high school or public. But, again, Thanks again for the worthwhile chat though.

 

[AllieBaba]

Some people like public libraries to be unrestrictive. Similarly, they want universities to be universal in the sense of including every piece of information that they can.

One argument was that if you want porn, buy your own. Well, I could say that if you want a book, go to amazon.com and buy your own.

And I want a gold toilet seat.

So you're advocating for no libraries, period, if they don't carry porn?

Funny.

 

[mattskramer]

And I want a gold toilet seat.

So you're advocating for no libraries, period, if they don't carry porn?

Funny.

If libraries were to restrict each item that was perceived by anyone as objectionable, there would be little left of libraries. I would rather libraries be inclusive (and perhaps make accommodations to keep children form having access to stuff that, by law, they are not allowed to have access to). That is my point. I would rather have libraries be more inclusive and even include books and stuff that some people might not like.

 

[Shogun]

porn is not a matter of philosophical affiliation, dude.

what is YOUR specific purpose for looking at porn? Is it to facilitate a sharing of ideals? Or it is the faciliate the jerkin of the gerkin?

 

[jillian]

porn is not a matter of philosophical affiliation, dude.

what is YOUR specific purpose for looking at porn? Is it to facilitate a sharing of ideals? Or it is the faciliate the jerkin of the gerkin?

which, again, has nothing to do with the borderline stuff that's the real issue.

but if you want to keep going.

 

[Shogun]

HA!

I don't think there is much gray area when it comes to net porn though. You may be thinking about nude models and the like but, by evidence of the colorful urls ive been posting, i'm not. I've said again and again, if we must fine tune the filter then so be it. If we must create a list of acceptable sites that trigger the filter then so be it. If a patron wants to file an access complaint and the Public Library wants to consider material on a case by case basis in order to be considerate of what may fall through the cracks then, righteous. BUT, in regards to net porn? I just dont think it has a place in a FORUM (HA! ReillyT) that is funded by collective taxes. I also don't think nudists should have bare ass access to public parks. I also don't think that public courthouses should be the easel for dogma expression. I don't think that public roads should be used for drag racing even if a few who pay the tab WANT to relive a lame fucking fast and furious movie. All of these things allow private options.

 

[Ravi]

Shog, I don't think voting on civil rights is permissible.

With your narrow guidelines this forum, thanks to you, would be off limits at the library.

 

[AllieBaba]

Don't be ridiculous. There's nothing illegal about this forum.

 

[manifold]

I hereby officially concede the theoretical and academic portions of this debate to Jillain, Ravir, ReillyT, Larkinn and anyone else I might've missed that insists that filtering internet porn in libraries violates the 1st Amendment. Fine, in the fantasy world of constitutional theory, you win. I acknowledge your inifinitely wonderous intellectual grasp on all matters pragmatically moot. My only hope is that you can find comfort in this hollow messageboard victory when the courts decide that filtering porn is perfectly legal.

Yours Truly,

manifold

 

[Ravi]

Don't be ridiculous. There's nothing illegal about this forum.

The links he posted, real or not, would trigger the filter.

 

[AllieBaba]

Too bad. You have no power to do so, and you aren't objective.
I veto your decision. Nobody has proven that libraries, pursuant to the consititution, are obligated to provide any and all available "literature" to the public.

 

[AllieBaba]

The links he posted, real or not, would trigger the filter.

Oh well. I don't see where the assumption that patrons must be able to access EVERYTHING that's available comes from.

Certainly not the constititution, which provides individuals with the right to pursue or publish their own work. Just because individuals have the right doesn't mean libraries are required to provide it. And they certainly aren't preventing individuals from doing as they like....