Porn is ok but safety of children is not.

[ReillyT]

and yet, beyond the jargonish mumbo jumbo meant to downplay the FACT of the SCOTUS ruling, how many precedents have ever been set by a majority decision?

I don't mean to downplay the SCOTUS decision. I am, in fact, the one who posted it.

 

[Ravi]

it's cool.. i'd run to ad hominems if I were you too. You clearly have the mental capacity to wade this far into this river of conversation.


Hey, you can blame my balls too if you need to.

Can't wrap your mind around it? Oh, well.

 

[mattskramer]

um, do millions of people log onto the net to jack off to piss christ? Is it art to create a video where one gal shits in a cup and the other eats it? I'd say that, abhorrent as some find it, pist christ has social relevance in comparing and contrasting how christians recieve and react to blasphemy when compared to, say, theo van gogh. We are not talking about art. We are talking about PORN.

One person’s wine in another person’s vinegar. Who is to say how something strikes a particular person. Some people might actually read Playboy for the articles. Some people might find pornographic images as art. Porn certainly is relative.

porn is not relative. If you think so, then surf the net at home. The public is not responsible for providing you with erotic stimulation.

Porn certainly is relative. What is the public responsible for providing? Again I contend that the public library is responsible for providing all sorts of information and imagery or nothing. Let each individual decide for himself what he wants to surf to or what books or articles he wants to see.

 

[Shogun]

Can't wrap your mind around it? Oh, well.

there are many of your opinions that I won't try to wrap my mind around.. gender inequality.. public funding of masterbatory erotica..


why don't you spare me your criticism and go read something that might give you a deeper perspective than what you are at by the shore. I've given you specific examples of relevant, and culturally interesting, people and events to review. your choice.

 

[Shogun]

I don't mean to downplay the SCOTUS decision. I am, in fact, the one who posted it.

and I appreciate that. It just seems that you are dissecting the ruling in order to minimize the relevance of it's result. I apologize if this was not your motivation.

 

[Ravi]

there are many of your opinions that I won't try to wrap my mind around.. gender inequality.. public funding of masterbatory erotica..


why don't you spare me your criticism and go read something that might give you a deeper perspective than what you are at by the shore. I've given you specific examples of relevant, and culturally interesting, people and events to review. your choice.

It's okay, dude. I know it's a difficult concept to grasp, the idea that providing something and not censoring something are two different things.

I'll not hold it against you.

 

[ReillyT]

and I appreciate that. It just seems that you are dissecting the ruling in order to minimize the relevance of it's result. I apologize if this was not your motivation.

The ruling is pretty clear that filters are allowed so long as they can be disabled if a patron requests.

Other than that, the reasoning of the case is complicated and ultimately unhelpful. It doesn't tell us what responsibility libraries have to abide by the First Amendment, or even if the First Amendment applies at all. It leaves unanswered as many questions as it answers. I am in this sense minimizing the case to its core decision: filters are permissible.

 

[Shogun]

Not as to the reasoning, just as to the result in the particular case. Therefore, the case offers guidence, but mostly as dicta.

but precedence nonetheless?

 

[manifold]

but precedence nonetheless?

Oh, the irony!

 

[jillian]

but precedence nonetheless?

To the extent Riley said.

 

[Shogun]

All precendents are set by a majority decision. It can't be precedential (at least bindingly so) unless 5 justices agree to it.

If what you are asking is what percentage of cases are decided by an straight majority vs. minority (dissenting) breakdown - i.e., what percentage of cases are not decided by plurality- then the percentage is very high, probably upwards of 90-95%.

Are you suggesting that their decision is not relevant? 5-4 decisions happen and are still relevant.


indeed, hows the 07 partial birth abortion ruling holding up?

 

[Ravi]

5, 4, 3, 2, 1 ...

 

[Shogun]

One person’s wine in another person’s vinegar. Who is to say how something strikes a particular person. Some people might actually read Playboy for the articles. Some people might find pornographic images as art. Porn certainly is relative.



Porn certainly is relative. What is the public responsible for providing? Again I contend that the public library is responsible for providing all sorts of information and imagery or nothing. Let each individual decide for himself what he wants to surf to or what books or articles he wants to see.

And yet the PUBLIC is not responsible to fill your glass with either wine or vinigar.. If you read playboy for the articles, great. Read your magazine at home or get playboy to offer a website that offers their lit sans tits and ass. What is NOT relative is the responsibility of the public when providing internet viewing machines on publicly funded property. No one has banned playboy. You have every opportunity to go read one after purchising your own copy.


"all sorts of imagery" is not a blank check for twogirlsonecup. The INDIVIDUAL doens't get to rule over the collective will of the tax payers footing the bill.

sry.

 

[Shogun]

It's okay, dude. I know it's a difficult concept to grasp, the idea that providing something and not censoring something are two different things.

I'll not hold it against you.

Im sure you hold it against my testicles though.

indeed, given your propensity to "grasp" gender inequality I can tellya that your criticism will cause many, MANY tears to flow today.

 

[Shogun]

The ruling is pretty clear that filters are allowed so long as they can be disabled if a patron requests.

Other than that, the reasoning of the case is complicated and ultimately unhelpful. It doesn't tell us what responsibility libraries have to abide by the First Amendment, or even if the First Amendment applies at all. It leaves unanswered as many questions as it answers. I am in this sense minimizing the case to its core decision: filters are permissible.

yea.. I kinda thought thats what you were trying to achieve.


it's cool, dude. Your opinion of it's relevance is probably about as significant as those who work at planned parenthood this side of a particular 07 scotus 5-4 decision.

 

[Ravi]

Im sure you hold it against my testicles though.

indeed, given your propensity to "grasp" gender inequality I can tellya that your criticism will cause many, MANY tears to flow today.

It isn't criticism, quit being so sensitive. It's a fact. Crack open a book and learn something.

And I sure hope you aren't at the library where you're going to be arrested at any minute.

 

[manifold]

It isn't criticism, quit being so sensitive. It's a fact. Crack open a book and learn something.

And I sure hope you aren't at the library where you're going to be arrested at any minute.

Nope, he's in his mom's basement. But he still might get arrested any minute if they pick up the heat signature from his grow lamp.

 

[mattskramer]

And yet the PUBLIC is not responsible to fill your glass with either wine or vinigar.. If you read playboy for the articles, great. Read your magazine at home or get playboy to offer a website that offers their lit sans tits and ass. What is NOT relative is the responsibility of the public when providing internet viewing machines on publicly funded property. No one has banned playboy. You have every opportunity to go read one after purchising your own copy.


"all sorts of imagery" is not a blank check for twogirlsonecup. The INDIVIDUAL doens't get to rule over the collective will of the tax payers footing the bill.

sry.

Okay, and then let’s turn this argument around. Don’t you think that a line should be drawn somewhere? I’ll try my best to explain through questions. If the public (read “public library&#8221 is not responsible for providing you with porn (whatever porn is), then what is the public library responsible for? What if I think that pro-Republican books are just as dangerous and despicable and offensive as porn? The library is not supposed to provide us with said books then. What if other people are offended by other stuff or other things? Then the public library will be reduced to nothing but an empty building.

 

[Shogun]

To the extent Riley said.

or, rather, the FACT of it's ruling. Say, Reilly, what was the ruling breakdown of Pico since, apparently, THAT seems to meet your precedent criteria?

 

[Shogun]

It isn't criticism, quit being so sensitive. It's a fact. Crack open a book and learn something.

And I sure hope you aren't at the library where you're going to be arrested at any minute.

Fact like gender inequality, eh?