Porn is ok but safety of children is not.

[jillian]

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....

Wow...I knew you were stupid. I knew you appeared to be a compulsive liar. I knew you suffered from anger issues. But I didn't know you suffered from delusions of grandeur. Perhaps I should have.

And honey, you really need to stop implying you're smarter than anyone. It just makes all of us laugh at you.

 

[AllieBaba]

Watch it, doll, you're starting to sound bitter and hysterical again.

 

[jillian]

Watch it, doll, you're starting to sound bitter and hysterical again.

There you go projecting again. raflmao.

 

[manifold]

Catfight! Catfight!


mrrraawwwwwwwr!

 

[AllieBaba]

You betcha.

 

[Larkinn]

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.

Refers to the nobility? And where does it do that?

I simply pointed out that one of the "freedoms" it is in favor of is the freedom to sexually abuse children.

No, actually you mean you lied and said that, since it is a lie.

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

Yes. I stand by anyone whose rights are being infringed on, even if I disagree with them 100%. I'm there in that Polygamy thread defending the FLDS, even though I think polygamy is weird, their leader is a crackpot, their religion is fucking retarded, and they may very well rape children. But until they are proven to have engaged in illegal activities, I will defend them.

When was the last time you, or any conservative group, defended the rights of a group to do something, even though you completely disagreed with their actions?

The ACLU doesn't want the age of consent to change to 12 or whatever NAMBLA wants it to be. It doesn't want Nazis to march in Skokie. It doesn't want to legalize recreational ocycontin. But they will defending NAMBLA, Nazis, or Rush Limbaugh if their rights are infringed upon.

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.

And you obviously know shit about being a lawyer. Any idea what percentage are litigators or end up in court?

 

[Shogun]

And thats a restriction freedom not all might agree with.
The problem is that making that distinction costs money.
Yes, thats correct.
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.

Then i'd suggest you get your grassroot effort on and start intoducing legislation that guarentees the liberty to use public funded resources to facilitate porn watching. You'll find out pretty quick how many are on my side and how many are on yours.

 

[Larkinn]

Then i'd suggest you get your grassroot effort on and start intoducing legislation that guarentees the liberty to use public funded resources to facilitate porn watching. You'll find out pretty quick how many are on my side and how many are on yours.

Thats nice. Also irrelevant.

 

[manifold]

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.

Is it only allegedly indecent items that give you pause, or would you also include something like..say...instructions for building bombs?

 

[Shogun]

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.

ALLEGEDLY? what is ALLEGED about net porn? Like I said, this isn't Bruce or Ginsberg comedy or poems.


And, just to be clear, no one is suggesting banning PORN from the public (via their own private net access) but rather restricting the viewing thereof from publicly funded resources.


Again, why don't we say fuckit and put some ALLEGEDLY indecent rags like Penthouse and "Double Penetration Midget on a Donkey monthly" next to the newspapers and Good Housekeeping? I mean, whose to say what is porn, right?

 

[Shogun]

Thats nice. Also irrelevant.

it's not irrelevant when YOU say that SOME may not agree with a public library filtering porn. Shall I quote you again?

 

[Larkinn]

Is it only allegedly indecent items that give you pause, or would you also include something like..say...instructions for building bombs?

That also gives me pause. Actually I don't think we should ban that.

 

[manifold]

Larkinn,

I can fully appreciate your default position standing up for anyone who's rights are being infringed. I do that myself. But I'm having a very difficult time seeing how filtering internet content at a public library constitutes an infringement. Who's rights are being violated? What right is being violated?

 

[Larkinn]

ALLEGEDLY? what is ALLEGED about net porn? Like I said, this isn't Bruce or Ginsberg comedy or poems.

Really? Porn is so easy to define? Thats why porn is one of the classic things thats defined as "know it when you see it", type thing?

And, just to be clear, no one is suggesting banning PORN from the public (via their own private net access) but rather restricting the viewing thereof from publicly funded resources.

Yes, we know.

Again, why don't we say fuckit and put some ALLEGEDLY indecent rags like Penthouse and "Double Penetration Midget on a Donkey monthly" next to the newspapers and Good Housekeeping? I mean, whose to say what is porn, right?

The library is specifically paying FOR those type of materials. Unlike the internet where the price includes porn and wikipedia all in one.

 

[Larkinn]

it's not irrelevant when YOU say that SOME may not agree with a public library filtering porn. Shall I quote you again?

So when I say that not all will agree with the filtering, your counter is to say that many will agree with it?

No shit sherlock. Its a populist issue. The whole "defend the children" bullshit plays well in the public.

 

[Larkinn]

Larkinn,

I can fully appreciate your default position standing up for anyone who's rights are being infringed. I do that myself. But I'm having a very difficult time seeing how filtering internet content at a public library constitutes an infringement. Who's rights are being violated? What right is being violated?

The publics money is being spent censoring part of the internet from the public. I don't see how the government can justify spending money to try to keep something from me.

 

[manifold]

The publics money is being spent censoring part of the internet from the public. I don't see how the government can justify spending money to try to keep something from me.

You mean like the FCC has been doing with radio and television since those mediums were first introduced?

 

[Shogun]

google net porn, dude. Like I keep telling you, this isn't the statue of David, comedy by Bruce or poems by Ginsberg. If you don't think 12 images of a pair of human being fucking like dogs, closeup to closeup, is obscene then so be it. I assure you that the Ferlighetti trial didn't eliminate the possibility of obscene material.

I would post images to make my point but I'm pretty sure the mods would nix that shit real quick.. BECAUSE net porn is not ALLEGEDLY obscene.



The library is specifically paying FOR those type of materials. Unlike the internet where the price includes porn and wikipedia all in one.


uh, so how does that make "Big Black Cocks and Tiny White Pussies" any less pornographic than it's magazine counterpart? Again, which is LESS expensive, adding a filter or nixing the net access? According to your "ALLEGED" arguement why should "Fecal Steamers Mag" be rejected if you can fathom the same thing as long as it has a www dot com somewhere in the address?

 

[manifold]

The publics money is being spent censoring part of the internet from the public. I don't see how the government can justify spending money to try to keep something from me.

And btw: Arguing that it isn't justified on these grounds isn't exactly the same as arguing that it is an infringement of constitutionally protected rights.

Shoggie is reminded of this every time he steps outside his local dive to enjoy another cancer stick.

 

[Larkinn]

You mean like the FCC has been doing with radio and television since those mediums were first introduced?

I disagree with that as well.

I also find it fascinating that nobody has a problem or gives a shit about the violence you can find on the internet.