Porn is ok but safety of children is not.

[Shogun]

Most internet pornography isn't gray. However, there are always borderline cases. Take Playboy for example. I know it is cliche to say that one reads it for the articles, but over the years Playboy has actually had a lot of famous interviews with people of interest. Does Playboy get banned?

Actually, I am pretty sure that Playboy is subscription, but hopefully you get the idea. Even with (perhaps it is better to say especially with) pornography, there are gray areas.

If playboy can offer a nude-free option that still retained the interviews then so be it. But you can't insist that it's a lsight of your first amendment if an interview is not accessable when it's peppered with profane material.


indeed, there are grey areas.

NET PORN is not one of them.

 

[Ravi]

Fine...

...and three years later..."Sorry Ms. Ravi, it's still not here yet. Must be an administrative glitch. I'll have to look into it. In the mean time, can I interest you in the latest Ann Coulter offering? We have 16 copies."

Lying isn't a valid excuse to not provide a book.

 

[ReillyT]

no. thats EXACTLY the point Im TRYING to make when challenging anyone to convey how NET PORN passes the three criteria of abscenity from the Miller Court. It's not, in any way shape or form, an expression of ideals like Howl, Bruce comedy or any other piece of Lit.

I will try to go through this one more time. After you read it, repeat it several times until you understand it.

1. Obscene material under Miller is clearly not protected.

2. The Miller standard is hazy and in many cases it will not be clear what is or is not obscene under Miller.

3. Libarians are ill-suited to make the Miller determination in borderline cases (especially because they will be making determinations of constitutional rights).

4. Filters will exclude many things that are not obscene under Miller.

 

[Ravi]

More than once.

Okie dokie.

 

[ReillyT]

If playboy can offer a nude-free option that still retained the interviews then so be it. But you can't insist that it's a lsight of your first amendment if an interview is not accessable when it's peppered with profane material.


indeed, there are grey areas.

NET PORN is not one of them.

I agree that hardcore pornography will rarely if ever fall into the gray area. Filter technology will also capture stuff that does fall into the gray area. That is a problem.

 

[manifold]

If I may, I'd like to inject a wee bit of pragmatism into this discussion.

Fact: The FCC has been censoring radio and tv since forever (figuratively speaking).

So it's reasonable to conclude that censorship in any form, is not necessarily a 1st Amendment violation. If it were, the FCC wouldn't exist, right?

Now, how is censoring internet content materially different from censoring radio and television content?

 

[Shogun]

I think that it all comes down to where we want libraries to draw the line. Some tax payers want libraries to be more inclusive. Some people want more material to me excluded. There are shades of gray. I think there was a famous supreme court judge who once basically said that he could not define obscenity precisely but that he would know it if he saw it. Tell me that such is not personal and subjective.

According to standing Miller court precedence? no, it's not.

You are quoting from Lenny Bruce's fandango with undercover cops sent to bust his ass for COMEDY, by the way.

 

[manifold]

Lying isn't a valid excuse to not provide a book.

Who claimed validity?

Not me.

 

[ReillyT]

If playboy can offer a nude-free option that still retained the interviews then so be it. But you can't insist that it's a lsight of your first amendment if an interview is not accessable when it's peppered with profane material.

This is a gray area. A Playboy photo spread from the 60s with an accompanying interview of Arthur Miller will, I suspect, rarely be determined to be obscene under Miller (referring to the photo spread here, not the interview). Not obscene... but should it be excluded? On what basis? Who makes the determination? What about erotic literature in the magazine? What if the erotic literature has a political message within it?

 

[ReillyT]

You are quoting from Lenny Bruce's fandango with undercover cops sent to bust his ass for COMEDY, by the way.

What if the comedy is sexually graphic in nature? How sexually graphic must it be? Who decides? How does filter software deal with these issues and how can we trust software not to exclude quality expression?

 

[Shogun]

I know the Miller case. What would you like me to address? I don't know what your question is.

Specifically, the three criteria of obscenity. I posted them earlier. Feel free.


I also don't know what you are addressing here. Vectors are protected to varying degrees. The question of whether a school can keep a particular book out of a high school library is a legal one, and would probably have to be handled on a case by case basis. Clearly, they can keep out Hustler, and can't keep out Mark Twain. Most cases fall somewhere in between.


Vectors are NOT protected. I suggest you read Pico a little closer. In fact, by admitting that HS can filter out Huslter mag you just admitted that vectors are NOT protected. SPECIFICALLY, the case you mentioned, Island Tree v Pico SPECIFICALLY addresses "pervasively vulgar" material. I don't know what kind of net porn YOUVE seen but everything IVE seen falls under that catagory.


I think a library could completely get rid of interent access. I don't think there is anything wrong with that from a legal standpoint. That isn't a viewpoint-specific decision. All expression would be treated equally if you got rid of the net.

indeed. I agree.


I am arguing from a legal standpoint, not a personal one. Filtering doesn't trouble me a great deal personally.


I don't lose any sleep over the subject either. It's just fun to enter the gladiator pit of USMB and wave my trident around.

Have a great day, sir.

 

[Ravi]

Who claimed validity?

Not me.

You're coming up with all these silly excuses to try to prove how easy it is to get around the first amendment. Why not apply them to internet usage as well.

"Oh, sorry, Mani, the server's down, you'll just have to get your jollies elsewhere."

Eventually they're going to have to come clean, don't you think, and tell you that you have no right to read what you want to read.

Now, I've asked you a question four or five times and you've not answered it yet.

 

[manifold]

How does filter software deal with these issues and how can we trust software not to exclude quality expression?

White lists.

 

[manifold]

You're coming up with all these silly excuses to try to prove how easy it is to get around the first amendment. Why not apply them to internet usage as well.

"Oh, sorry, Mani, the server's down, you'll just have to get your jollies elsewhere."

Eventually they're going to have to come clean, don't you think, and tell you that you have no right to read what you want to read.

Now, I've asked you a question four or five times and you've not answered it yet.

I'm merely responding to silliness with silliness of my own.

And what question was that?

 

[Shogun]

Well. I think that they should be included (at least in an adult section) at the public college level.

even college libraries restrict porn watching though. And we didn't have hustler at my University library. dammit. WE had to settle for figure drawing art books and obscure 16th century oil paintings for Library masterbatory antics..


JUST kiddng.

 

[ReillyT]

Specifically, the three criteria of obscenity. I posted them earlier. Feel free.

What about them?

Vectors are NOT protected. I suggest you read Pico a little closer. In fact, by admitting that HS can filter out Huslter mag you just admitted that vectors are NOT protected. SPECIFICALLY, the case you mentioned, Island Tree v Pico SPECIFICALLY addresses "pervasively vulgar" material. I don't know what kind of net porn YOUVE seen but everything IVE seen falls under that catagory.

As you defined vectors, yes they are. If I recall, you said that as long as the material could still be legally be obtained somewhere (e.g., at home on the net, or at that Borders), the government wasn't prohibited from banning the material in a certain vectors (e.g., the public library), especially a government provided vector. That is simply false as a general proposition. It is true that the government can prohibit certain materials in certain vectors. However, vectors themselves are protected to varying degrees. Just because Mark Twain can be purchased at Borders doesn't mean that the school can take it off the library shelves. Yes, certain speech receives greater protection in school libraries than others (big surprise there), but gov't vectors are still subject to the First Amendment.

By the way, can we use the word "forums" now?

 

[ReillyT]

White lists.

Still can't make determinations on borderline cases. No one but a court reliably can, which is why some would reasonably feel queasy about leaving it up to the librarian.

 

[Ravi]

even college libraries restrict porn watching though.

Do they? Many colleges provide wifi to the students. In fact many high schools do as well. How do you limit access to porn when someone is using their own computer but the school's internet access?

 

[Shogun]

You are confusing two different issues.

dude, gimme a break. IM not the one running to the greaf ******* bard to validate net pron in the public library.


One, can the government regulate in unlimited fashion in government provided vectors? No, it cannot.


Who the hell said anything about UNLIMITED FASHON? Can you quote me suggesting such a thing?

However, is REGULATION ALLOWED? you are ******* right it is.


Two, can some books or materials be prohibited in certain vectors? Yes, they can.

well, thank you for finally getting to that point.

However, 1 + 2 does not = people have no right to non-obscene materials in public libraries.


ignoring the double negative, Yes, it pretty much DOES mean that people do not have the RIGHT to view porn on publicly funded vectors.



As for Miller, I agree that stuff that would not pass the Miller test can be prohibited, whether for children or for adults.


PRAISE THE ******* LOWARD. ok. thats all I wanted to hear.

now, how much net porn passes Miller?



However, in many cases, it is not clear what will pass the Miller test and what won't. Additionally, filters will keep out many things that would not be obscene under the Miller test. They are overbroad in their application, and this is the constitutional concern with them. If they only restricted materials that would be classified obscene under Miller, there would be no problem. However, Miller is so hazy a test that it would take a judge and a couple months of discovery to determine whether a borderline case satisfies Miller.



This is why i've been explicit in making it clear what I've been talking about regarding NET PORN. review the thread and consider the URLs that I have posted and tell me if you think they would pass miller. Again, THIS isn't about fine tuning filters. That's a given. However, this is still no excuse to nix filters when you ALWAYS have the option to get your own internet account.


and, when Miller is applies to LITERATURE, I agree.. it's hazy according to perspective. But I could post some net porn in this thread and YOU wuldn't hesitate to call it what it is. Why? Because NET PORN does not offer IDEALS like Howl, Lolita, or JOS.

 

[Ravi]

Still can't make determinations on borderline cases. No one but a court reliably can, which is why some would reasonably feel queasy about leaving it up to the librarian.

We could put an internet monitor in every public library and make it their job to be the censor. They could wear cool uniforms, maybe something like those Chinese pajamas that are so fetching. Have them trained by the Department of Homeland Security, I'm quite sure with their record of handling hurricanes, etc., they'd be great at this.