Porn is ok but safety of children is not.

[Ravi]

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....

I'm not saying there shouldn't be an effort to keep kids from being exposed to porn. I'm saying filters aren't it. IMO, they are unconstitutional and too problematic.

 

[AllieBaba]

Once again, they aren't "unconstitutional" unless the government requires them to be in place.

People can use them or not, according to their own desires.

 

[Ravi]

Once again, they aren't "unconstitutional" unless the government requires them to be in place.

People can use them or not, according to their own desires.

That's not bad. Why not just give people the option to use filtered computers? I understood from your posts that you wanted them installed by the government on all library computers.

 

[Shogun]

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.

really? where is the net porn? I seem to have missed that thread.




CIVIL RIGHTS?


HA!

thats rich. I'll spare you 5 pages of lambasting that statement if you promise to go read a little bit about the Ferlinghetti Trial and that of Lenny Bruce and discover what it means to actually have your civil rights violated.. Then, come back to me and tell me about your civil right to look at porn in public using the public's machinery.

this is the one I read. It comes with a CD of ole Bruce standup. good stuff.
http://www.law.seattleu.edu/fachome/skover/trialsoflennybruce/index.htm


Howl on Trial (I have an autographed copy of this book. )
http://www.citylights.com/book/?GCOI=87286100083370

 

[Shogun]

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

and, if a MOD gave a dman about that they they can delete my posts or the Urls. I've made my point. Stop being mellowdramatic now that Im standing on your neck.

 

[Ravi]

Your faux porn links would trigger the filter...do you have any sort of an imagination?

 

[Shogun]

I'm not saying there shouldn't be an effort to keep kids from being exposed to porn. I'm saying filters aren't it. IMO, they are unconstitutional and too problematic.

they ARE it, they ARE constitutional and they are no more problematic than child molestors stalking the cpu lab.

 

[Shogun]

Your faux porn links would trigger the filter...do you have any sort of an imagination?

You checked them, didn't you? Don't lie.


and, if a filter WERE triggered then you could take your complain to the library for consideration. You don't have any reason to assume that public computers are your personal portal to the world wide intertubes. If you don't like it then take your ass home and get your own access.


guess what. I can't sit at a public terminal and play video games either. Oh SHIT, someone tell blizzard that their rights are being violated!?!

 

[AllieBaba]

I love the leftie belief that everything is relative. THe application of law is relative to the beliefs of those it's being applied to, the constitution is to be used to spread garbage to the masses because they're too poor to buy their own garbage, and somehow it's the responsibility of the libraries to ensure they can get it....

 

[Ravi]

You checked them, didn't you? Don't lie.


and, if a filter WERE triggered then you could take your complain to the library for consideration. You don't have any reason to assume that public computers are your personal portal to the world wide intertubes. If you don't like it then take your ass home and get your own access.


guess what. I can't sit at a public terminal and play video games either. Oh SHIT, someone tell blizzard that their rights are being violated!?!

lol, no I didn't test them, you said they weren't real.

You can play video games if they are playable on the web (without additional software) and you use headphones.

One problem with filtering is that anyone can maliciously make any interactive site trigger the filters.

 

[Shogun]

lol, no I didn't test them, you said they weren't real.

You can play video games if they are playable on the web (without additional software) and you use headphones.

One problem with filtering is that anyone can maliciously make any interactive site trigger the filters.

those are not universal library policies. At my Univ they had a STRICT no game policy. Why? Because we were "the electronic campus" in the late 90s flagshipping net access into every dorm room where you could play to your hearts content. in private.


again, don't like it? go to an internet coffee shop or prowl around until you find an unsecure wifi.



Tell me, Ravi.. should you be allowed to watch lesbian carpet-love DVD porn at the public library?

 

[Ravi]

No, because the library would have to buy it.

I hear what you're saying, but until you can find a filter without bugs you're just going to run into problems.

You keep jumping between high school, college and public libraries. Let's stick to public.

 

[AllieBaba]

Public libraries are dependent upon the donations of the community and various and assorted grants.

There is no law anywhere that says they "have" to provide anything at all. They provide based upon their ability financially to provide, and there are boards which make those decisions.

So this argument is idiotic. THey aren't violating anybody's constitutional "rights" if they don't have the internet because they're a poor, rural library, or if they have the internet and put on porn blockers. They aren't violating anyone's rights if they don't carry "Gone With the Wind", or if "Uncle Tom's Cabin" goes missing and isn't available when the next person wants to check it out.

Sheesh.

 

[Shogun]

No, because the library would have to buy it.

I hear what you're saying, but until you can find a filter without bugs you're just going to run into problems.

You keep jumping between high school, college and public libraries. Let's stick to public.

no, lets say YOU brought in YOUR OWN porn. Should you be allowed to use THEIR DVD player to watch YOUR porn?


And, forgive me for stepping deeper into the concepts by considering relevant scotus decisions that illustrate a high school example. Clearly, I should have just said "fuck you, you are wrong" and be done with it.

 

[manifold]

You know, you guys could really save yourself some time by stipping away all the repetative and superflous verbiage and cut right to the heart of your exchange of ideas. It would look something like this:

Ravir: It violates free speech
Shogun: No it doesn't
Ravir: Yes it does
Allie: No it doesn't
Jillian: Yes it does
Shogun: No it doesn't
ReillyT: Yes it does
Allie: No it doesn't
Ravir: Yes it does
Shogun: No it doesn't
Jillian: Yes it does
Allie: No it doesn't
Ravir: Yes it does
Shogun: No it doesn't...I win! Yippie..............................

 

[AllieBaba]

 

[mattskramer]

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?

What was to purpose of “Piss Christ”? Put a crucifix in a jar of urine and take a photograph? What news is there in that? What mental stimulation is there or need there be? It is to provoke and stimulate. People have different tastes, interests, likes, and dislikes. What does it matter? Art and contribution is in the eye of the beholder. It is all relative. Images, as well as books, bring up different emotions in people (anger, hate, love, lust, appreciation, etc. Perhaps one sees beauty in porn. It just doesn’t matter.

 

[mattskramer]

I love the leftie belief that everything is relative. THe application of law is relative to the beliefs of those it's being applied to, the constitution is to be used to spread garbage to the masses because they're too poor to buy their own garbage, and somehow it's the responsibility of the libraries to ensure they can get it....

Relativism is the key to life. Even laws take circumstances into account when making judgments and in handing down sentences. Is America purely capitalistic? No. It has some share-the-wealth and safety-net policies. Is America purely socialistic? No. It has incentives for individuals to grow, progress, and keep much of their own money. Practically all things should be considered in moderation and considered with respect to time and circumstances. Though they are often used as a reference, our founding fathers were far from perfect. While some perhaps thought that it wrong to have slaves, they had slaves. They thought that women should not vote. There is good and bad in just about everything.

 

[Ravi]

no, lets say YOU brought in YOUR OWN porn. Should you be allowed to use THEIR DVD player to watch YOUR porn?


And, forgive me for stepping deeper into the concepts by considering relevant scotus decisions that illustrate a high school example. Clearly, I should have just said "fuck you, you are wrong" and be done with it.

I don't think they should provide the dvd or provide the player to watch it. There's nothing of value in the dvd, there is much of value on the internet. Like I said before, I agree keeping porn from kids is the right thing to do, I just disagree with your solution.

 

[ReillyT]

To clear up some issues, I thought it would be good to look at what the USSC said in 2003. I just skimmed the case, so this may not be 100% accurate. Regardless, it doesn’t clear up many issues.

The US government and the First Amendment are most clearly implicated by the fact that the federal government subsidizes internet use in libraries. It is also generally agreed that the US government cannot use its spending power to facilitate other entities (e.g., libraries) in their restricting of constitutional liberties. After that, it gets hazy.

Four justices (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, O’Connor) said that libraries can decide what they want to keep in the library and suggest (but don’t go quite so far as to state unabashedly) that libraries just have to be rational in their selection of library materials. Libraries and the internet they provide do not rise to the level of a public forum (like a park) so there is no special First Amendment protection.

Kennedy doesn’t want to get into any serious constitutional issues. For him, it is enough that libraries can unblock internet sites quickly at the behest of patrons, so even if there is a First Amendment issue (which he declines to decide), no First Amendment protection is denied in this case.

Breyer says the libraries are bound by the heightened restrictions of the 1st Amendment, but here the ability to unblock materials is adequate, no 1st Amendment violation.

Stevens, Ginsberg and Souter don’t think the government can condition giving money on the basis of a library limiting the 1st Amendment.

Anyway, there we have it.

Are libraries on their own allowed to restrict view-point materials and face no 1st Amendment constraints? It isn’t clear. 4 say yes. 1 says nothing. 1 says not really. 3 say probably not.

Can the government use its spending power to compel libraries to block certain materials without 1st amendment concern? It isn’t clear. 4 say yes. 1 says nothing. 4 say no.

Can libraries use filtering technology even if it captures perfectly innocuous information? 4 say yes. 2 say yes, provided the filters can be turned off when asked. 3 say no.

Anway, I am sure that my skimming overlooked important issues, but this is what the case seems to say to me.

http://www.cdt.org/speech/cipa/030623decision.pdf