Porn is ok but safety of children is not.

[AllieBaba]

Yes, they're interested in the freedom to abuse children.

 

[Shogun]

you don't have a "freedom" to view porn in public.


Man Caught Watching Porn in Car


A man in Fort Worth, Texas, has been issued a citation by police after he was caught watching porn on his car DVD player. He was cited with obscene display or distribution, not having a driver's license and having an open container of alcohol.

The man was caught after he drove past police at around 2 AM and they saw the images on the 10-inch screen. Lt. Dean Sullivan said that images of "multiple naked people" could be viewed by anyone walking past the car, which was then parked.

http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=66460


and you are commenting on my rebuttal to Ravi's statement that a filter would be expensive. Sure, the internet is great and should be accessed in a public library for INFORMATION; not for visual stimulus.

There is no law mandating net access to public libraries nor is there the guarenteed liberty of web browsing. That being the case, PUBLIC libraries should be able to do what the ACLU is suggesting that they should not be able to do: filter porn from their pcs.

 

[AllieBaba]

And libraries don't "have" to provide any and all literary material to their audiences.

They can choose not to carry certain books, and they can certainly choose whether or not to provide their patrons with internet service, or porn on that internet service.

We don't have a "right" to free porn.

 

[Larkinn]

Yes, they're interested in the freedom to abuse children.

No, they aren't. Please tell me how looking at porn equals abusing children?

 

[manifold]

That being the case, PUBLIC libraries should be able to do what the ACLU is suggesting that they should not be able to do: filter porn from their pcs.

Again, I haven't been able to confirm this accusation levied against the ACLU. If anyone else can I'd be interested to see it.

 

[AllieBaba]

No, they aren't. Please tell me how looking at porn equals abusing children?

I wasn't referring to looking at porn. I was referring to NAMBLA.

Though certainly the porn industry is rife with child abuse.

 

[Larkinn]

you don't have a "freedom" to view porn in public.

And thats a restriction freedom not all might agree with.

and you are commenting on my rebuttal to Ravi's statement that a filter would be expensive. Sure, the internet is great and should be accessed in a public library for INFORMATION; not for visual stimulus.

The problem is that making that distinction costs money.

There is no law mandating net access to public libraries nor is there the guarenteed liberty of web browsing.

Yes, thats correct.

That being the case, PUBLIC libraries should be able to do what the ACLU is suggesting that they should not be able to do: filter porn from their pcs.

Why? There is a difference between the rules requiring you to do something, and the rules mandating HOW you do something if you choose to do it.

 

[Larkinn]

I wasn't referring to looking at porn. I was referring to NAMBLA.

The ACLU supports freedom to associate and freedom to speech. Both of those protect NAMBLA. Amusing that your all willing to defend lifestyle choices, freedom of speech, and all that jazz when it comes to Polygamists, but when it comes to NAMBLA (who, by the way, have done nothing criminal by setting up an organization), you accuse anyone of defending them of abusing children

Though certainly the porn industry is rife with child abuse.

As are polygamists.

 

[Larkinn]

And libraries don't "have" to provide any and all literary material to their audiences.

They can choose not to carry certain books, and they can certainly choose whether or not to provide their patrons with internet service, or porn on that internet service.

We don't have a "right" to free porn.

Different between an opt-in and an opt-out program. Libraries don't have to provide anything, but if they started burning Catcher in the Rye I think people might speak out about it.

 

[AllieBaba]

Rights and freedoms do not extend to the right to pursue sexual relationships with children. Which is NAMBLA's stated objective.

It's not the stated objective of the polygamists.

There's a difference.

 

[jillian]

Rights and freedoms do not extend to the right to pursue sexual relationships with children. Which is NAMBLA's stated objective.

It's not the stated objective of the polygamists.

There's a difference.

Because filtering the internet or not has WHAT to do with NAMBLA??

 

[manifold]

Larkinn,

I'm not sure I understand your position on this issue. Are you saying that you do not think libraries should be allowed to filter porn, or that you do not think they should be required by the community residents that fund the library to filter porn? Or are you saying something else entirely?

 

[AllieBaba]

Because filtering the internet or not has WHAT to do with NAMBLA??

Sorry, honey, I didn't dumb it down enough.

I'm sure if you read it again slowly you can make the necessary connections.

 

[Larkinn]

Rights and freedoms do not extend to the right to pursue sexual relationships with children. Which is NAMBLA's stated objective.

Yes, you ARE entitled to attempt to change the laws to allow individuals to pursue sexual relationships with children.

It's not the stated objective of the polygamists.

There's a difference.

Another difference is that one has been linked to the actual rapes of children and one hasn't.

 

[jillian]

Sorry, honey, I didn't dumb it down enough.

I'm sure if you read it again slowly you can make the necessary connections.

I always find it amusing when one of the stupidest posters on the board calls others stupid.

The irony is so very sweet....

damn, how do you make it out of bed in the morning?

By the by, your posts rarely have rational connections and are generally incomprehensible.

 

[Larkinn]

Larkinn,

I'm not sure I understand your position on this issue. Are you saying that you do not think libraries should be allowed to filter porn, or that you do not think they should be required by the community residents that fund the library to filter porn? Or are you saying something else entirely?

I don't have a defined argument on this issue.

I think that libraries must have internet access. But I am hesitant to allow public libraries to use public money to censor allegedly indecent items for public well being.

 

[Larkinn]

Sorry, honey, I didn't dumb it down enough.

I'm sure if you read it again slowly you can make the necessary connections.

There is no connection. You just like trash talking the ACLU.

 

[AllieBaba]

Oh no, dear. I would never call you stupid. I was taught to be kind to inferiors.

I know it's frustrating, but I'm sure if you just keep plugging away things will start to make sense....

 

[jillian]

There is no connection. You just like trash talking the ACLU.

Things also get jumbled up in her little brain.

She's just tantruming because once again, she got proven wrong. One would think she'd be used to it by now.

 

[AllieBaba]

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.

Do you two have adhd or something? This is the post I was referring to, which as you can see refers to the nobility of the ACLU and what it's in "favor" of. I simply pointed out that one of the "freedoms" it is in favor of is the freedom to sexually abuse children.

But if that's who you want to stand by, by all means, go for it.

I'd like to point out if this is indicative of your ability to cross examine and your ability to catch on to things you can then expound on, you must both be really crappy lawyers.