Porn is ok but safety of children is not.

[dread]

The ACLU is at it again trying to decide what is right and what is wrong. I wonder what they would do if they took their kids to a library and they got molested........


http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62660


The existing policy of providing differing levels of filters for Internet-connected computers at the 27 locations of the Sacramento Public Library system will continue for now, after the district's operating board deadlocked 7-7 on plans to abandon any attempt to prevent anyone from accessing X-rated material and worse.

The vote continues the stalemate between the ACLU, which is seeking to remove any existing porn filters and use taxpayer money to buy expensive porn-viewing computer desks, and pro-family groups whose leaders have expressed a desire to restore a safe environment to the libraries.


Matthew Reynolds, a PJI staff attorney, argued that the issue comes down to two main concerns – taxpayer subsidization of pornography and public safety.

"The Constitution doesn't require that we pay for public access to porn," he said. "It may require, at least under current interpretation, to be allowed in homes, but not that you and I pay for it.

"This issue boils down to protecting kids and using public resources responsibly," McReynolds continued. "Inviting sexual predators into libraries by providing free access to pornography has proven tragic for kids in San Francisco, Chicago, Atlanta, and many other cities. We cannot let that happen in Sacramento.

 

[Swamp Fox]

ACLU= America, Can't Love U


What a bunch of communist, American hating idiots.

 

[Shogun]

I would have to disagree with the Aclu position. Public libraries should not have access to porn.

 

[nibor]

What the hell is X rated material and worse...............donkey fuckin'?

Did they figger out NAMBLA YET..........

 

[frazzledgear]

What the hell is X rated material and worse...............donkey fuckin'?

Did they figger out NAMBLA YET..........

No one should be surprised by the cases the ACLU chooses to insert itself -and the ones they won't. All you have to do is read the ACLU policy statement from their beginning written by the founders, a policy statement that essentially remains unchanged to this day, to realize their choice of cases have a very real agenda. One that has absolutely NOTHING to do with "protecting" civil liberties. It has everything to do with bastardizing our civil liberties for the specific purpose of weakening the social fabric of OUR society in the belief that doing so will cause it to collapse from within. And the belief that it is a worthy goal, entirely possible - is part and parcel of communist dogma and the undeniable goal of the ACLU.

Roger Baldwin and Crystal Eastman founded the ACLU in 1920 and made no bones about their goals and purpose for the creation of the ACLU -and deliberately establishing it in a way that allowed it to masquerade as some kind of "bastion" protecting and defending our civil liberties. What a joke -"protecting" our civil rights under a system they despised.

Fifteen years after the founding of the ACLU, Baldwin wrote: " I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself ... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. I don't regret being part of the communist tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the communists wanted, and I traveled the United Front road to get it."

The ACLU's official policy statement reveals that the intent of the ACLU is to undermine the moral foundation, and weaken the fabric of our society.

Too long to comment on every single policy number in their statement. But policy numbers 62 & 75 reveal that the ACLU is opposed to a parent's role in educating their children, including home schooling.

Policy numbers 239 & 242 state that not only is the ACLU opposed to the death penalty, even for the most heinous murderers -but their policy statement shows their real goal regarding criminals. Their policy is one of seeking to have all criminals except murderers given suspended sentences, and simply released back into the community. (Now why would the ACLU think its a good idea to put criminals and the bottom feeders of society back into society instead of protecting society from such people I wonder?)

In 1982, the ACLU, in an amicus role, lost in a unanimous decision in the Supreme Court to legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography.”

The case is New York Vs Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 -and their LEGAL position was criminalize the production of child pornography -but legalize its sale and dissemination into society.

In another court case, the ACLU opposed a law requiring that porn movie producers keep and maintain records showing the age of performers -claiming this was a GROSS violation of privacy! Since it has already made it clear the ACLU opposes making making it a felony -or crime at all - to sell, barter, trade or distribute child pornography. It especially objects to the ban on advertising of child pornography -in its brief, the ACLU said "the law cannot expect every publisher to decode every advertisment for some hidden and sinister meaning" -as if it takes a special skill to ferret out pictures of children with their genitals lewdly exposed. In 1985, the ACLU President, told the US Attorney General's Commission on Pornography, that distribution of child pornography was protected under the 1st Amendment.

Which certainly helps explain why in 2007 the very same ACLU executive who argued that internet filters in libraries that would limit children's access to pornography would interfere with their ability to learn and communicate-was busted for possession of child porn.

The ACLU mirrors Lenin's 'Communist Rules for Revolution,' revealed after a 1919 raid in Dusseldorf, Germany. The files include: "... corrupt the young, control all means of publicity, divide people into hostile groups, destroy people's faith. Preach democracy, but seize power, encourage government extravagance and discontent, foment strikes and civil disorder, break down moral values, and create a pretext to control all firearms."


All you have to do is go back through history and realize the cases this group has deliberately chosen to insert themselves -follow a consistent agenda. And they all play a role in bastarding our pure rights with the specific intention of fulfilling the above in some way.

Former ACLU Southern CA staff attorney, Rees Lloyd describes the ACLU as, "the Taliban of American liberal secularism." He isn't the first to actively serve as part of the ACLU only to quit once they could no longer deny their real agenda.

NO private organziation was given ANY authority or mandate to act as guardians of our rights and NO private organization yet has done it better than the institution that was given that mandate under our Constitution. Our government was the ONLY institution given that mandate -and divided into three branches in order to best do that.

I spit on the ACLU.

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." --Norman Thomas, ACLU co-founder and Socialist Party presidential candidate

 

[manifold]

I would have to disagree with the Aclu position. Public libraries should not have access to porn.

Sure, just take the Worldnetdaily's word for what the ACLU's position is. I bet they'd never misrepresent it or anything.

 

[jillian]

Sure, just take the Worldnetdaily's word for what the ACLU's position is. I bet they'd never misrepresent it or anything.

Is anyone asking how porn is defined before saying that it shouldn't be accessible in libraries?

 

[manifold]

Is anyone asking how porn is defined before saying that it shouldn't be accessible in libraries?

Hey, this isn't what I thought I was quoting????

That's some might fast editing there Jill.

 

[jillian]

Hey, this isn't what I thought I was quoting????

That's some might fast editing there Jill.

That's because you were responding to something different from what I thought you were.

 

[mattskramer]

The ACLU is at it again trying to decide what is right and what is wrong. I wonder what they would do if they took their kids to a library and they got molested........


http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62660

The existing policy of providing differing levels of filters for Internet-connected computers at the 27 locations of the Sacramento Public Library system will continue for now, after the district's operating board deadlocked 7-7 on plans to abandon any attempt to prevent anyone from accessing X-rated material and worse.

The vote continues the stalemate between the ACLU, which is seeking to remove any existing porn filters and use taxpayer money to buy expensive porn-viewing computer desks, and pro-family groups whose leaders have expressed a desire to restore a safe environment to the libraries.


Matthew Reynolds, a PJI staff attorney, argued that the issue comes down to two main concerns – taxpayer subsidization of pornography and public safety.

"The Constitution doesn't require that we pay for public access to porn," he said. "It may require, at least under current interpretation, to be allowed in homes, but not that you and I pay for it.

"This issue boils down to protecting kids and using public resources responsibly," McReynolds continued. "Inviting sexual predators into libraries by providing free access to pornography has proven tragic for kids in San Francisco, Chicago, Atlanta, and many other cities. We cannot let that happen in Sacramento.

Adults, parents, and guardians are deciding what it right for themselves and their children. You decide what is right for your family and let me decide what is right for my family. As I see it, the ACLU is not deciding what is right and wrong. They are trying to let us, as individuals, be free to decide what is right and wrong for ourselves.

If a parent does not what his or her child in a particular environment, then that parent should take that child out of that environment. The parent can sit with the child and monitor what he sees. He can buy his own computer and filter for himself.

It looks to me like Gerald Ward needs help. What was he doing looking at porn anyway? Wasn’t he supposed to be working? Just because some individuals can’t handle looking at “dirty” pictures does not mean that it should be denied as an option for the vast majority of stable and responsible citizens. It seems like he might be more of a danger than the images on computer screens.

“Thomasson told WND that the library status now means there are filters for children, but those are removed any time an adult requests, and that leaves a virtual open door to the Internet.”

No it does not. Simply put them back on when the adult leaves or when a child requests to use the Internet.

"The Constitution doesn't require that we pay for public access to porn."

I doubt that the constitution even says anything about libraries. The rest of the article is just yaddah yadda yadda. I thought that conservatives wanted less government intrusion and regulation in our lives. Why not let freedom ring and have parents assume responsibility for their own children?

 

[mattskramer]

I would have to disagree with the Aclu position. Public libraries should not have access to porn.

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

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

I would have to disagree with the Aclu position. Public libraries should not have access to porn.

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

 

[dread]

Sure, just take the Worldnetdaily's word for what the ACLU's position is. I bet they'd never misrepresent it or anything.

If you dont believe them by all means do some research for yourself to find out if what they posted is a sham.

 

[dread]

Adults, parents, and guardians are deciding what it right for themselves and their children. You decide what is right for your family and let me decide what is right for my family. As I see it, the ACLU is not deciding what is right and wrong. They are trying to let us, as individuals, be free to decide what is right and wrong for ourselves.

If a parent does not what his or her child in a particular environment, then that parent should take that child out of that environment. The parent can sit with the child and monitor what he sees. He can buy his own computer and filter for himself.

It looks to me like Gerald Ward needs help. What was he doing looking at porn anyway? Wasn’t he supposed to be working? Just because some individuals can’t handle looking at “dirty” pictures does not mean that it should be denied as an option for the vast majority of stable and responsible citizens. It seems like he might be more of a danger than the images on computer screens.

“Thomasson told WND that the library status now means there are filters for children, but those are removed any time an adult requests, and that leaves a virtual open door to the Internet.”

No it does not. Simply put them back on when the adult leaves or when a child requests to use the Internet.

"The Constitution doesn't require that we pay for public access to porn."

I doubt that the constitution even says anything about libraries. The rest of the article is just yaddah yadda yadda. I thought that conservatives wanted less government intrusion and regulation in our lives. Why not let freedom ring and have parents assume responsibility for their own children?

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?


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


WAY TO GO!

 

[Gunny]

Adults, parents, and guardians are deciding what it right for themselves and their children. You decide what is right for your family and let me decide what is right for my family. As I see it, the ACLU is not deciding what is right and wrong. They are trying to let us, as individuals, be free to decide what is right and wrong for ourselves.

If a parent does not what his or her child in a particular environment, then that parent should take that child out of that environment. The parent can sit with the child and monitor what he sees. He can buy his own computer and filter for himself.

It looks to me like Gerald Ward needs help. What was he doing looking at porn anyway? Wasn’t he supposed to be working? Just because some individuals can’t handle looking at “dirty” pictures does not mean that it should be denied as an option for the vast majority of stable and responsible citizens. It seems like he might be more of a danger than the images on computer screens.

“Thomasson told WND that the library status now means there are filters for children, but those are removed any time an adult requests, and that leaves a virtual open door to the Internet.”

No it does not. Simply put them back on when the adult leaves or when a child requests to use the Internet.

"The Constitution doesn't require that we pay for public access to porn."

I doubt that the constitution even says anything about libraries. The rest of the article is just yaddah yadda yadda. I thought that conservatives wanted less government intrusion and regulation in our lives. Why not let freedom ring and have parents assume responsibility for their own children?

The library is a publicly funded, public facility. It is against the law is it not for anyone under the age of 18 to purchase, possess or view pornography?

I think attempting to force the state -- the law itself -- to violate its own law by providing access to pornography to persons under the age of 18 is a bit absurd.

As far as your "the parent can supervise the child at the library" idea goes ... let's be realistic. People whose kids have to go the library to use the internet probably don't have time to sit at the library with little Johnny. When you can get a computer for $400. and some slow-ass internet for relatively nothing, I'd say little Johnny's parents are probably busy trying to make the rent.

 

[dread]

As far as your "the parent can supervise the child at the library" idea goes ... let's be realistic. People whose kids have to go the library to use the internet probably don't have time to sit at the library with little Johnny. When you can get a computer for $400. and some slow-ass internet for relatively nothing, I'd say little Johnny's parents are probably busy trying to make the rent.

I wasnt even looking at the point of parents allowing their kids on the internet. I guess that thought never entered my head seeing as I always watched my kids like hawks around the computer and there was never any need to go to the library for internet service because since my kids were 5 we have had internet service.

However I do worry about the child molester watching that shit for free and then using the bathroom to molest little kids. Moms cant always watch their kids go to the bathroom. Specifically mothers with boys above the age of say six.


Then there is the very real fact that one can get child pornography online. THAT shit is illegal to everyone....So that would make the library liable. AND you and I are paying for the crime!

 

[Ravi]

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.

 

[manifold]

If you dont believe them by all means do some research for yourself to find out if what they posted is a sham.

Thanks for your permission.

But since 99% of what they report is adulterated spin, maybe I'll just take it on faith.

 

[manifold]

For shits and grins I went ahead and researched the WND's claim and surprise, surprise, I couldn't confirm it anywhere. Obvious conclusion: They made it up.

 

[AllieBaba]

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