Porn is ok but safety of children is not.

[Shogun]

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.

OR, it's a logical extension of common ideas about how PUBLIC money should be spent and how it SHOULDNT be spent. In this case, public money should NOT be spent on accessing porn in the public library. If you need a vote to indicate the majority opinion on that matter then feel free to get your grassroot effort on.

It's not bullshit to clarify what role the net will play in our PUBLIC libraries while they are funded by the collective public.. Feel free to have all the net porn available at your private library.

 

[AllieBaba]

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



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



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.



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

I know I wouldn't want an attorney who couldn't follow the topic of a conversation through it's intricacies. And you and Jillian have proven repeatedly that you are unable to do so.

 

[Shogun]

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.

simple. You have every other avenue to access net porn that IS NOT the product of public funds. Libraries aren't keeping you from porn; they are keeping you from looking at porn in THEIR public locations.


And, since i've already posted evidence that you DONT have the right to watch porn in public...

 

[Larkinn]

google net porn, dude. Like I keep telling you, this isn't the statue of David, comedy by Bruce or poems by Ginsberg.

There is only one type of net porn? Explore a little bit.

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.

Thats the only type of net porn? Someone cited a case where someone found porn in a biology class.

uh, so how does that make "Big Black Cocks and Tiny White Pussies" any less pornographic than it's magazine counterpart?

It doesn't. Nobody claimed it was.

Again, which is LESS expensive, adding a filter or nixing the net access?

I dealt with this issue already. Baby, bathwater, public interest in the internet. You didn't respond.

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?

Do you get the difference between paying specifically for porn, and paying for a wide variety of information which also happens to include porn?

 

[Larkinn]

OR, it's a logical extension of common ideas about how PUBLIC money should be spent and how it SHOULDNT be spent. In this case, public money should NOT be spent on accessing porn in the public library.

Its not being spent on that. Its being spent on allowing the largest and most comprehensive and efficient communicator of information on the planet to be accessed by the public. Oh, and it also includes porn.

If you need a vote to indicate the majority opinion on that matter then feel free to get your grassroot effort on.

Who talked about majority opinion? Who gives a shit?

It's not bullshit to clarify what role the net will play in our PUBLIC libraries while they are funded by the collective public.. Feel free to have all the net porn available at your private library.

Its bullshit to use my money to deny access to me.

 

[Shogun]

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.

woa there, lil doggie.. I've been clear to distinguish between PUBLIC locations and PRIVATE locations this who thread. If larkin were to open a library version of what amounts to a private bar then I'd be telling you that he would have every right to have as much access to porn as keeps his customers coming back.


You DO know the difference between what pays the public library electric bill and what pays for the Eastside Tavern's electric bill, yes?

 

[Shogun]

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.

thats a tired, lame assed strawman. Is this thread about net porn or ogrish.com?

 

[Larkinn]

I know I wouldn't want an attorney who couldn't follow the topic of a conversation through it's intricacies. And you and Jillian have proven repeatedly that you are unable to do so.

Thats all you have to say from my argument dismantling your idiocy about NAMBLA?

Go away. Troll somewhere else. Your opinion on me as a lawyer is worthless, you wouldn't be able to afford me anyway, kid.

 

[Larkinn]

simple. You have every other avenue to access net porn that IS NOT the product of public funds. Libraries aren't keeping you from porn; they are keeping you from looking at porn in THEIR public locations.

The difference is unimportant considering they are spending money on it.

 

[Larkinn]

thats a tired, lame assed strawman. Is this thread about net porn or ogrish.com?

Look up with a strawman is. That wasn't one of them.

 

[AllieBaba]

You didn't dismantle anything. You stated idiocy about the ACLU defending "FREEDOMS!" and I pointed out that one of the reedoms the ACLU chooses to defend is the freedom to sexually abuse children.

Apparently that bothers you somewhat. Sorry about your luck.

 

[Ravi]

You didn't dismantle anything. You stated idiocy about the ACLU defending "FREEDOMS!" and I pointed out that one of the reedoms the ACLU chooses to defend is the freedom to sexually abuse children.

Apparently that bothers you somewhat. Sorry about your luck.

No they don't.

 

[Larkinn]

You didn't dismantle anything. You stated idiocy about the ACLU defending "FREEDOMS!" and I pointed out that one of the reedoms the ACLU chooses to defend is the freedom to sexually abuse children.

You pointed out a lie. I guess I shouldn't have been surprised.

Apparently that bothers you somewhat. Sorry about your luck.

And the cops stoping men from raping girls bothers you.

 

[Shogun]

There is only one type of net porn? Explore a little bit.

I can and do. AT home. Did you have a point?



Thats the only type of net porn? Someone cited a case where someone found porn in a biology class.

I'm afraid you'll have to cite your source a little better than that. Who is arguing ONE type of net porn? You are trying to dance around the same debate as ferlighetti but you just don't seem to realize that erotic poetry and illicit pics of people fucking are hardly similarly ambiguous.



It doesn't. Nobody claimed it was.

well, then, how come you don't ague for dirty magazines too? WHO is to say that "Teen Swallow 14 - Superjizz special issue" is porn, yes?



I dealt with this issue already. Baby, bathwater, public interest in the internet. You didn't respond.

I did respond in specifically letting you know to what you were responding to. I can quote myself if you cannot scroll up. And, regarding the baby and bathwater, internet is not guaranteed or expressly necessary in the public library. SHOULD it be there? sure. SHOULD people like you be able to figure out why www.chickswithdicks.com is obscene material that a library should restrict according to its own volition? I'd think so but hey..



Do you get the difference between paying specifically for porn, and paying for a wide variety of information which also happens to include porn?[/QUOTE]

 

[manifold]

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.

I do too.

I'm just supplying the only precedent in existence that applies.

 

[AllieBaba]

(for LarkinnDoesn't apply. As I said. NAMBLA's stated purpose is to promote illegal relations between little boys and grown men. They label themselves as perverts, and to be perverted is the self-admitted sole reason for the existence of the organization.

Not so with the FDLS folks.

But good try at muddying the waters. As I said, you can't be a very good attorney.

 

[manifold]

woa there, lil doggie.. I've been clear to distinguish between PUBLIC locations and PRIVATE locations this who thread. If larkin were to open a library version of what amounts to a private bar then I'd be telling you that he would have every right to have as much access to porn as keeps his customers coming back.


You DO know the difference between what pays the public library electric bill and what pays for the Eastside Tavern's electric bill, yes?

Yes.

My only point in bringing that back up (apart from needling you a bit), was to say that despite your philosophical opposition, you still have to step outside to light up.

 

[Larkinn]

I can and do. AT home. Did you have a point?

Try some reading comprehension. The point was that there is more than one type of porn.

I'm afraid you'll have to cite your source a little better than that. Who is arguing ONE type of net porn? You are trying to dance around the same debate as ferlighetti but you just don't seem to realize that erotic poetry and illicit pics of people fucking are hardly similarly ambiguous.

So where is the line then?

well, then, how come you don't ague for dirty magazines too? WHO is to say that "Teen Swallow 14 - Superjizz special issue" is porn, yes?

Are you slow? Its the difference between opt-in and opt-out.

And, regarding the baby and bathwater, internet is not guaranteed or expressly necessary in the public library.

Never said it was guaranteed.

SHOULD it be there? sure.

Then why are you stupidly advocating it shouldn't be?

SHOULD people like you be able to figure out why www.chickswithdicks.com is obscene material that a library should restrict according to its own volition? I'd think so but hey..

Restrict using public funds?

 

[Shogun]

Its not being spent on that. Its being spent on allowing the largest and most comprehensive and efficient communicator of information on the planet to be accessed by the public. Oh, and it also includes porn.

Indeed, and, given the VENUE for witch we are talking about - the PUBLIC LIBRARY - money can either be spent filtering out the porn or money can be saved for more books by nixing access.


Who talked about majority opinion? Who gives a shit?

uh, probably the people removing the porn from the PUBLIC LIBRARY? I guess THEY give a shit. And, further, would be supported by the MASSES who both bay the bills via taxes AND can differentiate between Michelangelo sculpture and www.cockhungryteens.com....

need anything else cleared up?




Its bullshit to use my money to deny access to me.


dont go to the library for your porn activities. Go home and jack off in private like the rest of America.

 

[Larkinn]

(for LarkinnDoesn't apply. As I said. NAMBLA's stated purpose is to promote illegal relations between little boys and grown men. They label themselves as perverts, and to be perverted is the self-admitted sole reason for the existence of the organization.

From their website.

NAMBLA does not engage in any activities that violate the law, nor do we advocate that anyone else should do so.

Just can't keep from lying, now can you?

Not so with the FDLS folks.

But good try at muddying the waters. As I said, you can't be a very good attorney.

Considering if this was in court you would have gotten rule 11'ed for lying multiple times, I think I'll do fine.