Porn is ok but safety of children is not.

[Ravi]

Groan!

No, I'm not. It is already allowed dillhole.





You're entitled to your opinion. I disagree with much of the FCC's decisions, but I don't see any reason why entertainment media should get a pass on government regulation when no other industry does. Why are you so supportive of intervention in some areas and insist there should be none in others?

Did you not state further back on the thread that you would support legislation to allow Mockingbird if needed? I'm pretty sure you did. It shouldn't be necessary because it is protected by the first amendment.

What other industry is regulated in this manner? Freedom of speech is constitutionally protected. Polluting the air is not.

Get it?

 

[Shogun]

Again, you're misusing the strawman term. I've made no attempt to represent your position in any way so I can hardly be guilty of mis-representing it. And for the bazzilionth time, nobody that wants and can afford access to pornography is being denied the right to do so. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it a rights violation.

boy, THAT ain't no shit.

 

[Shogun]

I'm not exactly clear on the difference, either. From what I've read, the terminology means different things to different people, and is actually addressed as ambiguous here and there.

I thought "banning" just meant not offering. I guess it's a different thing if the government "bans" a book, but that isn't what we're talking about. We're not talking about making it illegal for anyone to access porn. We're talking about the library providing the materials for people to access illegal pornography, which exploits children etc.

Larkin says so, Baba.


believe it or you might be steeping allover his protected freedoms.


or something.

 

[manifold]

Did you not state further back on the thread that you would support legislation to allow Mockingbird if needed? I'm pretty sure you did. It shouldn't be necessary because it is protected by the first amendment.

What other industry is regulated in this manner? Freedom of speech is constitutionally protected. Polluting the air is not.

Get it?

Perhaps this is another example of me not making myself clear.

So I'll try again. I would support legislation, at the local level, to make Mockingbird part of my community library's offerings, thereby stripping overzealous artards with any say on the matter in this particular case.

As for your second point, I'm going to invoke the oft stated gun-control argument. Times change. Yup, the Founding Fathers never envisioned nukes. Well, they also never envisioned public transmissions over airwaves and fiber-optic cables either. And again, filtering porn does not incarcerate or fine ANYONE as a result of their speech.

Get it?

 

[Shogun]

The two issues are easily distinguishable to anyone with half a brain.

oh and I guess YOU are the one with the brain, eh?



As does yours. However thats what we are discussing, opinions. If you don't want to discuss opinions, stop spending your life on a message board.

No, stupid, WE are discussing the constitutionality of filtering net porn from public libraries. YOU keep bringing up the first amendment but you don't even try to show where your OPINION is protected. In other words, you are a ******* moron with nothing to offer besides your lame ******* opinon.

Meanwhile, after I've bitchslapped you with SCOTUS decision...





Hey, and they also got arrested, didn't they. Curious as to what would have happened if this "predator" did all of his business behind closed doors? Well?

STRAWMAN ALERT!


MEEEP MEEEEP MEEEEEP!


So, uh, netporn should be allowed just because you thing PREDATORS should molest children in the OPEN??

sick, dude. real ******* sick.


We don't use libraries like a fisherman uses bait, asshole. for crying out loud.. what WONT you grasp for?

 

[ReillyT]

Ample precedent disagrees with you.

Again, consider the FCC.

Obscenity is a special case, and materials that are determined to be obscene are not entitled to the same 1st Amendment protections. That may be the basis for many of the FCC regulations and rulings, but I am no expert on the FCC.

The seminal case I found deals with a high school library. I would think that a public library would have to abide by rules at least as strict, as courts often give schools more latitude with respect to the rights of children.

This case involves the removal of books from a library because they were deemed "anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semtic, and just plain filthy." The Court determined that while a school has discretion (and I would guess that public libraries have standards even more restrictive than this) it cannot remove books from libraries because of partisan or political opinions.

Our Constitution does not permit the official suppression of ideas. Thus, whether petitioners' removal of books from their school libraries denied respondents their First Amendment rights depends upon the motivation behind petitioners' actions. If petitioners intended by their removal decision to deny respondents access to ideas with which petitioners disagreed, and if this intent was the decisive factor in petitioners' decision, [Footnote 22] then petitioners have exercised their discretion in violation of the Constitution. To permit such intentions to control official actions would be to encourage the precise sort of officially prescribed orthodoxy unequivocally condemned in Barnette.

and

First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 435 U. S. 783 (1978). And we have recognized that "the State may not, consistently with the spirit of the First Amendment, contract the spectrum of available knowledge." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 381 U. S. 482 (1965). In keeping with this principle,

Page 457 U. S. 867

we have held that, in a variety of contexts, "the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas." Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557, 394 U. S. 564 (1969); see Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U. S. 753, 408 U. S. 762-763 (1972) (citing cases). This right is an inherent corollary of the rights of free speech and press that are explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, in two senses. First, the right to receive ideas follows ineluctably from the sender's First Amendment right to send them: "The right of freedom of speech and press . . . embraces the right to distribute literature, and necessarily protects the right to receive it." Martin v. Struthers, 319 U. S. 141, 319 U. S. 143 (1943) (citation omitted).

"The dissemination of ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing addressees are not free to receive and consider them. It would be a barren marketplace of ideas that had only sellers, and no buyers."

Anyway, this opinion didn't address obscenity and doesn't specifically address this issue of pornography. However, it does shed some background on the full expression of 1st Amendment rights. It also makes clear that just because the government provides something, it doesn't have unlimited ability to provide it in a partisan manner.

I will look for a better case when I have some time.

Sorry, I forgot the cite. Island Trees Sch. Dist. v. Pico by Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982) http://supreme.justia.com/us/457/853/case.html

 

[ReillyT]

Second, I don't put ideas from books on par with obscene images. Not to mention, that EVERY example used so far was from back when people were ACTUALLY trying to stifle IDEAS from books rather than maintain a public standard in PUBLIC locations.

Is it "freedom of expression" to piss in an alleyway after the bar? It's fun to wrap the first around every little whim and opinon but, again, acting like the sky is falling over porn filters in public libraries really isn't even remotely comparable to City Lights or Lenny Bruce. NEITHER were peddling in graphic sexual obscenity.

I actually agree that the First Amendment (actually, all Amendments) should be subject to common sense restrictions. I even may agree with computer terminals and filter software in public libraries (difficult issue, I am not sure). I was just surprised that you believe the 2nd Amendment should be given the fullest possible expression, and you appear to believe that the First Amendment should not.

 

[Shogun]

A. What the hell are you babbling about?

B. Why do you keep referring to "illegal" pornography, when most everyone else is discussing legal pornography?

While I agree, WE are talking about regular ole legal net porn...


I have to ask..


is it legal for you to leave your library of dirty movies and mags and sex toys and blow up dolls and all the rest of it on the coffee table while babysitting any age range of children? Would Libraries not be similarly making available adult material without a flter?


and, speaking of Adult, Why is it OK to FILTER what you think is material for any specific age range while NOT filtering the same material on public computer? Is www.penthouse.com somehow LESS obscene than Penthouse the magazine? If you can fathom the FILTERING of a mag rack why not the internet?

 

[manifold]

Obscenity is a special case, and materials that are determined to be obscene are not entitled to the same 1st Amendment protections. That may be the basis for many of the FCC regulations and rulings, but I am no expert on the FCC.

The seminal case I found deals with a high school library. I would think that a public library would have to abide by rules at least as strict, as courts often give schools more latitude with respect to the rights of children.

This case involves the removal of books from a library because they were deemed "anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semtic, and just plain filthy." The Court determined that while a school has discretion (and I would guess that public libraries have standards even more restrictive than this) it cannot remove books from libraries because of partisan or political opinions.



and



Anyway, this opinion didn't address obscenity and doesn't specifically address this issue of pornography. However, it does shed some background on the full expression of 1st Amendment rights. It also makes clear that just because the government provides something, it doesn't have unlimited ability to provide it in a partisan manner.

I will look for a better case when I have some time.

No need. This is sufficient to convince me that there are some limits to what can be limited (pun intended). Specifically political views. And I'm way cool with that.

However, you'll have a really really tough time convincing me that filtering pornography qualifies as a restriction based on partisan or political opinions.

 

[Shogun]

From a legal point of view, as a factual matter, I think that is wrong. Once the government provides a forum, it doesn't have the unlimited right to restrict viewpoints. The topic we are discussing now is one of the borderline cases. To Kill a Mockingbird is not.

It doesn't?


someone better inform the FCC.

 

[Ravi]

Perhaps this is another example of me not making myself clear.

So I'll try again. I would support legislation, at the local level, to make Mockingbird part of my community library's offerings, thereby stripping overzealous artards with any say on the matter in this particular case.

As for your second point, I'm going to invoke the oft stated gun-control argument. Times change. Yup, the Founding Fathers never envisioned nukes. Well, they also never envisioned public transmissions over airwaves and fiber-optic cables either. And again, filtering porn does not incarcerate or fine ANYONE as a result of their speech.

Get it?

Again, even at a local level, you shouldn't need legislation to allow something that is already protected by the 1st amendment.

You think porn didn't exist when the country started? LMAO! Most laws outlawing it have been since struck down. Why? Because they are unconstitutional.

Censorship is censorship. Remove internet access from the libraries and you remove the issue of protected speech. Make porn as harmful to society as we've made second hand smoke, again you get rid of the protected speech issue. Two easy answers to solve the problem.

I think Jillian's reasoning was just fine. Lewd behavior in public is already illegal. Anyone caught engaging in it is already breaking the law.

Just how big of a problem is this anyway? I've never seen anything in the press indicating that there is a rash of this behavior at local libraries.

 

[ReillyT]

I have to ask..


is it legal for you to leave your library of dirty movies and mags and sex toys and blow up dolls and all the rest of it on the coffee table while babysitting any age range of children?

I actually don't know. I don't think it would be illegal to just have them lying around. I don't know whether it would be illegal to give it to the children.

Would Libraries not be similarly making available adult material without a flter?

Pretty much.

and, speaking of Adult, Why is it OK to FILTER what you think is material for any specific age range while NOT filtering the same material on public computer? Is www.penthouse.com somehow LESS obscene than Penthouse the magazine? If you can fathom the FILTERING of a mag rack why not the internet?

One issue involves an individual person keeping their children from this stuff. In such a case, the First Amendment isn't even implicated. Once the government becomes involved, you have to take account of the First Amendment.

I am okay with filtering software on library computers provided it is the least constricting means of accomplishing the task (of keeping children from pornography). I don't like restricting adults though. That seems problematic to me. I would favor two separate computer banks - one accessible by adults and children and one accessible only by adults. The former could have filtering technology and the latter would not. That way, adults can continue to access whatever they want and everybody wins.

 

[jillian]

are you REALLY putting Catcher on par with www.twogirlsonecup.com?

for real?


and, again, do you want to comment on the miller court's three tiered criteria for obscenity? Do you want to offer a guess as to why Catcher is a tad bit different than internet videos?

You're talking internet videos. I'm talking about filters set any which way that don't discern between www.twogirlsonecup.com and The Art of War.

So some librarian with a bug up her butt decides she doesn't like Leonardo DiCaprio in Romeo and Juliette because it deals with teenage sex and that's that???

 

[Shogun]

So nudity isn't porn then? Or what?

a STATUE of nudity isn't. Then again, it's probably an infringement on your rights to restrict you from trying to give David a handjob so...




Oh, I've stayed on the subject and tried to pin you down on what you are saying. So is your new claim that the line isn't nudity? So what is it? Or are you claiming there is no line?


Im claiming that you are a ******* crack smoker for confusing net porn with granite statues. All ******* paired with the standard of the Miller court, does that work for you? I mean, the Miller court was ONLY supreme court member and, really, who the **** are they when LARKIN has an opinion?

I guarentfuckingtee your next move is to argue that Bukake is personal expression.




You have a Constitutional right to freedom? Not quite. YOU, in your idiocy, made a statement that agreed with me. Amusing.

far from it. As I point out, YOU don't have a constitutional right to force the public to disseminate your expression. Maybe, instead of crying that it's irrelevant, you can point out this freedom for the rest of us.



indeed, tell me more about idiocy!





LMFAO...taking away the right to do something isn't taking away freedom?
Wow, you ARE stupid.

You NEVER had the right to view porn in public. I realize that screaming "first amendment" is your chicken little punchline but it's really not a catch all for your stupid opinons.

Indeed, tell me more about STUPIDITY after you insist that pointing out where you think such is stated in the Constitution is IRRELEVANT.




Rights violated is not the same thing as freedom. Nice job at obfuscating the terms tho.



Again, you've never had the RIGHT to look at porn in public. Nor, have it paid for BY the public.

indeed, talk about obfuscation!




It doesn't HAVE to go purchase Catcher in the Rye for you, but if it doesn't allow the book because of vulgarity, THAT brings up serious 1st amendment issues.



VOCABULARY VULGARITY sure the **** is the EXACT SAME THING AS AN IMAGE OF A CHICK TAKING IT UP THE ASS, ISNT IT?

 

[manifold]

Again, even at a local level, you shouldn't need legislation to allow something that is already protected by the 1st amendment.

You think porn didn't exist when the country started? LMAO! Most laws outlawing it have been since struck down. Why? Because they are unconstitutional.

Censorship is censorship. Remove internet access from the libraries and you remove the issue of protected speech. Make porn as harmful to society as we've made second hand smoke, again you get rid of the protected speech issue. Two easy answers to solve the problem.

I think Jillian's reasoning was just fine. Lewd behavior in public is already illegal. Anyone caught engaging in it is already breaking the law.

Just how big of a problem is this anyway? I've never seen anything in the press indicating that there is a rash of this behavior at local libraries.

I'm beginning to suspect that this is one of those times where you are being intentionally dense for comedic effect.

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on more time.

A. The 1st Amendment DOES NOT GUARANTEE that libraries must carry every book ever written, nor any specific books. Address this point or STFU! I'm getting tired of your bogus "legislating what is allowed" bull shit.

B. Porn filtering DOES NOT EQUAL outlawing porn. Address this point or STFU! I'm getting tired of you claiming that ANYONE has suggested porn should be outlawed.

C. Porn is considered potentially harmful. If it weren't, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

D. As for Jillian's brilliant point, it's really not that brilliant at all. It's essentially saying, don't filter porn, just fine and arrest anyone caught looking at it. Yup, that's some pretty profound logic there.

 

[Shogun]

So then where is the line Shogun?

Oh wait...my bad...the line is nudity, right ?

MILLER v. CALIFORNIA, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)


1. Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, reaffirmed. A work may be subject to state regulation where that work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in sex; portrays, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and, taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Pp. 23-24.

2. The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be:

(a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, [Roth, supra, at 489,]

(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and

(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. If a state obscenity law is thus limited, First Amendment values are adequately protected by ultimate independent appellate review of constitutional claims when necessary. [Pp. 24-25.]

3. The test of "utterly without redeeming social value" articulated in Memoirs, supra, is rejected as a constitutional standard. [Pp. 24-25.]

4. The jury may measure the essentially factual issues of prurient appeal and patent offensiveness by the standard that prevails in the forum community, and need not employ a "national standard."

http://courses.cs.vt.edu/~cs3604/lib/Censorship/3-prong-test.html


I hope you realize that I was waiting for you to ask a couple times before I dropped some more FACTS on your head. It's fun to watch you scramble after having to address something beyond your own ******* schema.

 

[ReillyT]

However, you'll have a really really tough time convincing me that filtering pornography qualifies as a restriction based on partisan or political opinions.

You are right. There is a separate minor question pertaining to what is art, but I don't think that this is a major concern. I imagine the number of people who have been prevented from looking at artistic works by a porn filter is very, very small.

On the whole, I agree with you.

 

[CharlestonChad]

The ACLU is out of their minds on this one. Do they intend to redirect tax dollars for lube as well? Or is it just that they want to give the pervs blue balls as some sort of sick joke.

 

[jillian]

I'm beginning to suspect that this is one of those times where you are being intentionally dense for comedic effect.

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on more time.

A. The 1st Amendment DOES NOT GUARANTEE that libraries must carry every book ever written, nor any specific books. Address this point or STFU! I'm getting tired of your bogus "legislating what is allowed" bull shit.

B. Porn filtering DOES NOT EQUAL outlawing porn. Address this point or STFU! I'm getting tired of you claiming that ANYONE has suggested porn should be outlawed.

C. Porn is considered potentially harmful. If it weren't, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

D. As for Jillian's brilliant point, it's really not that brilliant at all. It's essentially saying, don't filter porn, just fine and arrest anyone caught looking at it. Yup, that's some pretty profound logic there.

Again, it seems that you're not understanding, but keep insulting me given the brililance exhibited in your use of language. *rolls eyes*

NO LEGISLATION NEED BE PASSED TO PROTECT SOMETHING ALREADY PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

Get it? Got it? Good.

Next.... the whole point is that they can't willy nilly filter the internet so adults can't read Romeo and Juliette because it depicts underage sex because some librarian thinks it's immoral.

Again we're not talking about filtering porn... btw, it's not porn that's unprotected by the Constitution, it's OBSCENITY. And that standard that Shogie keeps harping on under Miller ... requires that there be no redeeming social value. I don't expect libraries to go that far. They aren't art houses. But I do expect whatever filtering they use not to be random and not to be overly restrictive.

And by the by, the Court in Miller recognized the danger in infringing upon ANY type of expression.

 

[manifold]

Again, it seems that you're not understanding, but keep insulting me given the brililance exhibited in your use of language.

NO LEGISLATION NEED BE PASSED TO PROTECT SOMETHING ALREADY PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

Get it? Got it? Good.

I understand this point and I've refuted it's relevance to the matter under discussion multiple times. I'll try again, using baby steps this time.

Agree or disagree with the following statment:

The 1st Amendment DOES NOT GUARANTEE that libraries must carry every book ever written, nor any specific books.

True or False?