Porn is ok but safety of children is not.

[manifold]

I want to know where I can get a computer for $400.

http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/store_access.do?template_type=computer_store&landing=desktops&aoid=33467&kw=desktop+pc&tafcjnef=fy08&ppc=CCp21086871

 

[Shogun]

Wow. Shucks. I thought that we would agree on this issue. Aww.

see, the thing is, a public library is not a private business from which a parent should have to choose to avoid porn. A public library is just that: public, and I don't think the public should A) foot the bill for porn access and B) provide a circumstance where kids may be exposed to porn. I don't fathom a conceivable way to argue that access to porn is a civil right or protected liberty. And, while Im not going to regurgitate predictable ACLU bashing (after all, they never cry about the ACLU when that organization is busy defending conservative drug addicts back from terrorizing third world villages with their erectile dysfunction meds) I firmly believe that the venue being argued over is what makes the ACLU's position a loser.


we can argue about what is profane, obscene and porn all day long... but, then, we aren't debating Lenny Bruce comedy or Ginsberg poems.

 

[Shogun]

If people want it they should buy their own, and not expect public funding for it.

fair enough. I agree.

 

[Shogun]

Actually, it costs money for the libraries to block access to porn. The default internet feed is that anything is available.

Money well spent, imo.

actually, it COSTS to have internet access. if we wanna pull the "too expensive" gauntlet down then funding for net access can always be cut. It's a library any damn way, go read a book.

 

[Ravi]

actually, it COSTS to have internet access. if we wanna pull the "too expensive" gauntlet down then funding for net access can always be cut. It's a library any damn way, go read a book.

Yes, it does cost to have internet access. I don't see where I stated it didn't.

 

[mattskramer]

Taxpayers have a right to a safe place for their child. What you are inviting is perverts a way to get their rocks off at OUR expense AND you think THAT is ok?

Children are the responsibility of the parent – not the responsibility of the government. I think that a library should be allowed to provide all sorts of information and imagery and that it be left up to parents to decide what their children be exposed to. What if I were to object to political novels? I think that books by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are a danger for kids. What about web sites from the KKK or radical political organizations? They could brainwash impressionable minds into thinking all sorts of evil thoughts. That is political pornography. I guess that you could say that libraries should block such sites and not invite political perverts a way to get their rocks off at our expense. What other stuff should be blocked.

Then there is the old argument about what porn is. I recall a student being offended in a biology class. He did not think that it was right for freshmen students to see images of nude people. The images were in textbooks educating students about sex-linked genetic abnormalities. Are sites that talk about nudist camps and show “innocent” pictures of nude families pornographic? I was doing research on female health problems for a school project. The library that I visited had blocked almost every web site that I “googled to” because it must have thought that they were pornographic. Again, let each adult decide for himself what he and his children may be exposed to.

But then I guess for your children reading isnt fundamental. Either that or you like perverts molesting your kids.

I don’t have kids, but if I did, I would not surrender them to the government. I would educate them and expose them to what I deem to be appropriate- not to what the government deems to be appropriate. No. I don't have kids to be molested. Even if I had kids, what does liking or disliking perverts molesting kids have to do with the topic? People are responsible for their own actions. I’ve read pornography before. I didn’t cause me to molest anyone.

 

[jillian]

I want to know where I can get a computer for $400.

http://www.nextag.com/Desktops--PRICE-Under-400--zz300413zB4z5---html

 

[AllieBaba]

Thanks guys.

 

[Shogun]

Yes, it does cost to have internet access. I don't see where I stated it didn't.

you insinuated that it would be MORE expensive to filter the net feed coming into the library.


Actually, it costs money for the libraries to block access to porn. The default internet feed is that anything is available.

 

[Ravi]

you insinuated that it would be MORE expensive to filter the net feed coming into the library.


Actually, it costs money for the libraries to block access to porn. The default internet feed is that anything is available.

I didn't realize anyone was arguing to keep the internet out of the library. If they are, you have a point. If they weren't, you don't.

 

[Shogun]

WHO is READING porno on the net?


I hear what you are saying, dude.. and in a PRIVATE library i'd agree. But we are talking about a PUBLIC library and INTERNET PORN; not some erotic vampire novel by Joan Wilder. Net porn isn't a naked statue of David. Like I said, we are not talking about lenny bruce stand up or Ginsberg poems about homosexuality.


One could argue that Hustler or Penthouse is just a periodicle too. Should they grace a library mag rack? Should a public library invest in some Barely Legal dvds to match their pbs timeline of the revolutionary war?


I stand in disagreement still.

 

[manifold]

Not for nothing guys, but Shogun is making more sense than anyone on this thread.

 

[Shogun]

I didn't realize anyone was arguing to keep the internet out of the library. If they are, you have a point. If they weren't, you don't.

if it becomes a choice between Keeping the net in a public library without porn filters "because it is too expensive" or nixing the net budget entirely which do you think will save MORE money?

 

[Ravi]

if it becomes a choice between Keeping the net in a public library without porn filters "because it is too expensive" or nixing the net budget entirely which do you think will save MORE money?

Again, is someone arguing to take the internet out of the library? I guess they probably will now that they've discovered that porn filters aren't part of the basic service.

 

[manifold]

Perhaps I'm the only deviant fucker in this world, but I look at porn for one reason and one reason only, to rub one out. To think that people are going into a public library to bust a nut into their drawers is kind of disgusting.

Just sayin...

 

[Shogun]

Again, is someone arguing to take the internet out of the library? I guess they probably will now that they've discovered that porn filters aren't part of the basic service.

as opposed to "let's just let the net porn run rampant in public libraries because filters are too expensive"?


Hell, Libraries can always start logging every keySTROKE on their pcs. It's not like anyone has a RIGHT to access the internet OR use public property for sexual purposes. If you want to look at the net porn then get your own pc and net connection. problem solved.

 

[Shogun]

Perhaps I'm the only deviant fucker in this world, but I look at porn for one reason and one reason only, to rub one out. To think that people are going into a public library to bust a nut into their drawers is kind of disgusting.

Just sayin...

I fucking hear ya. for christs sake, is it also a "right" to get randy and then go hunt down the low traffic areas for some Gerkin Jerkin... IN the public library too?


I am of the mind that the LIBRARY can get as draconian as it wants in regulating it's access since they don't have a monopoly on the internet and it is funded by the collective public.

 

[Ravi]

Perhaps I'm the only deviant fucker in this world, but I look at porn for one reason and one reason only, to rub one out. To think that people are going into a public library to bust a nut into their drawers is kind of disgusting.

Just sayin...

Are you claiming that I disagree with that?

 

[Ravi]

as opposed to "let's just let the net porn run rampant in public libraries because filters are too expensive"?


Hell, Libraries can always start logging every keySTROKE on their pcs. It's not like anyone has a RIGHT to access the internet OR use public property for sexual purposes. If you want to look at the net porn then get your own pc and net connection. problem solved.

Whoa there doggie. I posted way back on the thread that I think porn filters in the library are well worth the expense.

 

[Larkinn]

if it becomes a choice between Keeping the net in a public library without porn filters "because it is too expensive" or nixing the net budget entirely which do you think will save MORE money?

Or hey, we can just shut down libraries entirely!

Don't throw the baby out with the bath-water. There is no reason to ban the net in libraries. In fact there are compelling public interest reasons to allow it. Libraries are there to provide information to the public and allow the public to consume the written word. The internet is the best and most efficient equalizer of knowledge the world has ever known. It would be foolish to not allow it in libraries.

By the way...the ACLU is in favor of freedoms, and this is restricting one.