Porn is ok but safety of children is not.

[ReillyT]

Ask Reilly about how scotus specifically separated POLITICIAL motivation from removing PORN.

That was only with respect to school libraries, which may very well be handled differently because they deal with the rights of the minors. I have no idea whether political expressions receive greater protections that pornography generally. I can see arguments on both sides of this.

 

[manifold]

Are you joking? I've learned more about how the law and SCOTUS works on this thread than I've learned anywhere else.

I stand corrected. A thousand apologies.

 

[manifold]

Ill remind you to what this was a reply to. If you feel like being the Marshal of personal attacks feel free to broaden your scope of application.

Still preserving that spotless record I see.

 

[Ravi]

I commented on that earlier. I was doing research on women’s health problems and was blocked most of the time at my public library on its Internet.

So your library isn't living up to the ruling...I was wondering under this ruling, if followed, how it would be applied to a request by a child to have the filter turned off.

 

[mattskramer]

So your library isn't living up to the ruling...I was wondering under this ruling, if followed, how it would be applied to a request by a child to have the filter turned off.

Sorry, I wasn't even a child.

 

[ReillyT]

or, rather, the FACT of it's ruling. Say, Reilly, what was the ruling breakdown of Pico since, apparently, THAT seems to meet your precedent criteria?

Actually, Pico was also a crazy case. The First Amendment must bring this out in the justices.

It came up in the context for determining whether the plaintiffs could even sue on the basis of a school removing books. The Appeals Court determined that it wasn't clear why the books were rejected and the District Court should have a full trial to figure that out first.

Three justices (Brennan, Marshall and Stevens) said the plaintiffs could sue, and that the First Amendment applies to studens in school, but must be construed according to the educational mission of the school In the present case, the determined that this prevents school libraries from removing books for political or partisan reasons.

One Justice (Blackmun) wrote a separate opinion saying that the Plaintiffs could sue and stressing that it is important that political ideas were at issue, and hence the 1st Amendment was implicated.

One Justice (White) said that there was enough factual evidence about improper motives of school officials that a full trial was warranted, and if he needed to discuss the First Amendment, he would wait to do after the full trial (as it could be settled beforehand, or it could be determined at trial that the school board wasn't acting for political reasons, making the whole question moot). What a copout.

The rest of the justices dissented for various reasons, including most prominently, the fact that school boards are state organs with a separate educational mission and it shouldn't be the role of federal courts to intrude on this mission.

So... no reasoning got 5 votes, so the only thing that really counts is that the case got to be heard before a full court. No final ruling was held on the applicability of the first amendment.

 

[Shogun]

I guess that in a similar vein, public schools face similar issues. That’s why I am so in favor of private schools. Let us end the argument, and save tax money, by selling off the public libraries and resort to private libraries and services? Would you agree with that?

I am not of the opinion that public schools and libraries should be scrapped because of varied opinions like this. If that were the case then the Governor of Alabama would have been able to scrap public education for the sake of private segregation.

Remember, I don't think that net filters in public libraries are a first amendment issue to begin with.

 

[frazzledgear]

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?

This childish whine that an adult shouldn't be prevented from viewing porn on a public library computer is ludicrous. Porn has ALWAYS been available in numerous other forms of media, some of which could be provided for free even. But none of which are EVER provided at a public library with taxpayers footing the bill for that library. The fact it is also available in yet another and newer form of media changes nothing. It does not fall within the mandated and taxpayer-funded purpose of the creation of a public library -no written mandate for any public library includes gratifying the prurient and lascivious desires of some within the community.

If you want porn in the form of a magazine -you have to go buy it yourself. Because you already know you won't find it at a public library. If you want to watch a pornographic video -you can't check one out at a public library. If you want to view porn on a computer and don't have a computer -then you have to buy time at an internet cafe or get on a friends's computer -because it won't be at the public library.

All taxpayers who pay for that public library have a RIGHT to expect public funded computers in a public library setting to provide nothing different in newer forms of media than what they already provide in all other forms of media in that library. If you can't get porn in the form of magazines, videos, tapes and books at a public library -then don't expect to get it on their computer and demand that all taxpayers have to foot the bill just because you want to look at it and you are an adult.

Adults have a right to view legal porn in whatever media form they choose. But that right NEVER includes a "right" to demand that taxpayers foot the bill so you can view it or have access to it.

Public libraries exist to the serve the GENERAL interests and needs of an entire community and not just adults. And not just some adults with a very narrow and lascivious interest. Which means I, as a parent, have EVERY right to expect a public library to not provide certain materials in ANY form of media and expose or provide access to that material to my kid now just because it is available in a newer form of media.

The ACLU isn't yet claiming public libraries should provide access to adults to pornographic books, tapes, videos and magazines all provided at taxpayer expense -because they know they have no legal grounds for any such claim. There still is no legal grounds for the ACLU to insist public libraries should provide access to it in THIS form of media.

 

[roomy]

This childish whine that an adult shouldn't be prevented from viewing porn on a public library computer is ludicrous. Porn has ALWAYS been available in numerous other forms of media, some of which could be provided for free even. But none of which are EVER provided at a public library with taxpayers footing the bill for that library. The fact it is also available in yet another and newer form of media changes nothing. It does not fall within the mandated and taxpayer-funded purpose of the creation of a public library -no written mandate for any public library includes gratifying the prurient and lascivious desires of some within the community.

If you want porn in the form of a magazine -you have to go buy it yourself. Because you already know you won't find it at a public library. If you want to watch a pornographic video -you can't check one out at a public library. If you want to view porn on a computer and don't have a computer -then you have to buy time at an internet cafe or get on a friends's computer -because it won't be at the public library.

All taxpayers who pay for that public library have a RIGHT to expect public funded computers in a public library setting to provide nothing different in newer forms of media than what they already provide in all other forms of media in that library. If you can't get porn in the form of magazines, videos, tapes and books at a public library -then don't expect to get it on their computer and demand that all taxpayers have to foot the bill just because you want to look at it and you are an adult.

Adults have a right to view legal porn in whatever media form they choose. But that right NEVER includes a "right" to demand that taxpayers foot the bill so you can view it or have access to it.

Public libraries exist to the serve the GENERAL interests and needs of an entire community and not just adults. And not just some adults with a very narrow and lascivious interest. Which means I, as a parent, have EVERY right to expect a public library to not provide certain materials in ANY form of media and expose or provide access to that material to my kid now just because it is available in a newer form of media.

The ACLU isn't yet claiming public libraries should provide access to adults to pornographic books, tapes, videos and magazines all provided at taxpayer expense -because they know they have no legal grounds for any such claim. There still is no legal grounds for the ACLU to insist public libraries should provide access to it in THIS form of media.

******* hell, another ******* soapbox for the zealous idiot to climb onto.You as a parent have no ******* right to expect a public library to provide any material other than that which you approve of, you ******* nitwit.Grow up will you? The world doesn't revolve around you and your ilk alone

 

[mattskramer]

Which means I, as a parent, have EVERY right to expect a public library to not provide certain materials in ANY form of media and expose or provide access to that material to my kid now just because it is available in a newer form of media.

Take care of your own damn kid.
Don't call on government to baby-sit for you.

 

[frazzledgear]

******* hell, another ******* soapbox for the zealous idiot to climb onto.You as a parent have no ******* right to expect a public library to provide any material other than that which you approve of, you ******* nitwit.Grow up will you? The world doesn't revolve around you and your ilk alone

My what a dense comprehension problem -bet you had some real problems getting through school with that because its still affecting your life. I did not say I had a right to expect a public library to only provide material I personally approve and since my post is still there -why don't you go back and take another look.

What I said is that even though newer forms of media may show up, I have a right to expect a public library to provide by way of the newer media the SAME kinds of information and the SAME kind of ACCESS to that information as it did before. Just because porn is also available in a newer form of media changes nothing -it doesn't mean a change in the kinds of information available to be accessed at the public library. A public library isn't a babysitter where it restricts access to some information and certain kinds of media based on age. Porn just isn't available at a public library in ANY form of media. Deal with it.

Just because porn CAN be accessed through a computer sure as hell doesn't mean a public library MUST make it accessible to you NOW - when it sure wasn't providing it to you in the form of magazines, tapes and videos and never will. So if you think you have some kind of "right" to be able to access porn at a taxpayer-provided computer at a public library, then why aren't you claiming the exact same "right" to have porn in EVERY possible form of media offered at a public library?

Public libraries routinely accept donations of books, videos, magazines etc. from private citizens. So why don't you just truck on down to your local public library and see what they do when you try and donate all your sticky copies of Hustler.

 

[roomy]

My what a dense comprehension problem -bet you had some real problems getting through school with that because its still affecting your life. I did not say I had a right to expect a public library to only provide material I personally approve and since my post is still there -why don't you go back and take another look.

What I said is that even though newer forms of media may show up, I have a right to expect a public library to provide by way of the newer media the SAME kinds of information and the SAME kind of ACCESS to that information as it did before. Just because porn is also available in a newer form of media changes nothing -it doesn't mean a change in the kinds of information available to be accessed at the public library. A public library isn't a babysitter where it restricts access to some information and certain kinds of media based on age. Porn just isn't available at a public library in ANY form of media. Deal with it.

Just because porn CAN be accessed through a computer sure as hell doesn't mean a public library MUST make it accessible to you NOW - when it sure wasn't providing it to you in the form of magazines, tapes and videos and never will. So if you think you have some kind of "right" to be able to access porn at a taxpayer-provided computer at a public library, then why aren't you claiming the exact same "right" to have porn in EVERY possible form of media offered at a public library?

Public libraries routinely accept donations of books, videos, magazines etc. from private citizens. So why don't you just truck on down to your local public library and see what they do when you try and donate all your sticky copies of Hustler.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, you are right about one thing, I never complete any of your posts, my missus has to put me in the recovery position before I swallow my tongue after the first two or three lines you are the epitomy of self righteous stupidity, but carry on, I love it

 

[jillian]

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, you are right about one thing, I never complete any of your posts, my missus has to put me in the recovery position before I swallow my tongue after the first two or three lines you are the epitomy of self righteous stupidity, but carry on, I love it

Now THAT'S funny...

 

[frazzledgear]

Take care of your own damn kid.
Don't call on government to baby-sit for you.

Apparently there are more than a couple of comprehension-challenged people here. Those insisting that because porn CAN be accessed through this form of media, a public library MUST provide that access are the ones demanding a change here, not me. They are demanding a change in the kinds of information available at a public library.

The internet is only another form of media. This just isn't that hard to understand. Porn is available in nearly every form of media -not just through a computer. So how do you figure this form of media means a public library MUST make porn accessible now and MUST change what kinds of information are available at a public library?

Your kid can't readily get inside the local porn shop to browse their wares and thumb through their magazines -but you think its weird that parents (and the public in general) see no justification for being forced to foot the bill so cheapskate perverts and kids alike can have access to the very same images at the public library? Are you nuts? Even though a public library allows no access to porn through any other form of media, NOW you think it must with JUST this one? On what grounds? Then why not demand an X-rated section at the public library then with porn available in EVERY form of media? Think taxpayers are going to go along with that one too?

Must be why porn shops are privately owned, taxpayers aren't footing the bill and people usually don't worry their kids will happen to wander into one and thumb through their porn. If you want to turn a public library into a gateway so kids can legally view porn -then don't be surprised when taxpayers refuse to foot the bill for them anymore.

 

[roomy]

Apparently there are more than a couple of comprehension-challenged people here. Those insisting that because porn CAN be accessed through this form of media, a public library MUST provide that access are the ones demanding a change here, not me. They are demanding a change in the kinds of information available at a public library.

The internet is only another form of media. This just isn't that hard to understand. Porn is available in nearly every form of media -not just through a computer. So how do you figure this form of media means a public library MUST make porn accessible now and MUST change what kinds of information are available at a public library?

Your kid can't readily get inside the local porn shop to browse their wares and thumb through their magazines -but you think its weird that parents (and the public in general) see no justification for being forced to foot the bill so cheapskate perverts and kids alike can have access to the very same images at the public library? Are you nuts? Even though a public library allows no access to porn through any other form of media, NOW you think it must with JUST this one? On what grounds? Then why not demand an X-rated section at the public library then with porn available in EVERY form of media? Think taxpayers are going to go along with that one too?

Must be why porn shops are privately owned, taxpayers aren't footing the bill and people usually don't worry their kids will happen to wander into one and thumb through their porn. If you want to turn a public library into a gateway so kids can legally view porn -then don't be surprised when taxpayers refuse to foot the bill for them anymore.

Yep, the first paragraph choked me again, I will have to put you on ignore lest I die

 

[frazzledgear]

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, you are right about one thing, I never complete any of your posts, my missus has to put me in the recovery position before I swallow my tongue after the first two or three lines you are the epitomy of self righteous stupidity, but carry on, I love it

And this is a perfect example of the empty mind that cannot find a sound basis for an argument. Just string together words that adds up to a big nothing.

Taxpayers have the right under the Constitution to decide what they will and will not collectively foot the bill for. Get over it. There is nothing wrong with the people who insist there is no need to change what kinds of information are available to all at a public library. And nothing wrong with those people who insist that just because porn is accessible by a newer form of media doesn't mean public libraries must now provide that access to porn when it doesn't do so for any other kind of media.

There is something wrong with people like YOU who think taxpayers should foot the bill for access to porn just because you are too damn cheap to pay for it yourself. What's the matter? Still haven't figured out why porn shops are called porn shops and not public libraries?

 

[roomy]

And this is a perfect example of the empty mind that cannot find a sound basis for an argument. Just string together words that adds up to a big nothing.

Taxpayers have the right under the Constitution to decide what they will and will not collectively foot the bill for. Get over it. There is nothing wrong with the people who insist there is no need to change what kinds of information are available to all at a public library. And nothing wrong with those people who insist that just because porn is accessible by a newer form of media doesn't mean public libraries must now provide that access to porn when it doesn't do so for any other kind of media.

There is something wrong with people like YOU who think taxpayers should foot the bill for access to porn just because you are too damn cheap to pay for it yourself. What's the matter? Still haven't figured out why porn shops are called porn shops and not public libraries?

hahahahahahahahaha...gurgle, splutter...h...e..........l...................p..........m...........................e.............................

 

[frazzledgear]

Yep, the first paragraph choked me again, I will have to put you on ignore lest I die

So far not one of you bozos who insists a public library MUST provide you access to internet porn has offered a single legitimate argument. Just insults -which tells me the level of both your mentality and level of education.

 

[frazzledgear]

Yep, the first paragraph choked me again, I will have to put you on ignore lest I die

I have to take the insults from you and the other bozo for what they really are. Clearly you can only resort to that because neither of you have any sound reasoning at all for why public libraries MUST provide access to porn through this media when it doesn't for any other form of media.

As for the one who said he didn't think public libraries were even mentioned in the Constitution. He's right. But that taxpayers have the right to decide what they will collectively foot the bill for and what they won't -IS. And its part of state constitutions too. It is done through a process that is apparently unknown to you called "elections" and "referendums". Such ignorance about how our system works. But it is actually the very same process used when taxpayers have and will continue to decide whether they will pay more in property taxes or reduce them. Same process used when taxpayers decide whether to shell out more in taxes or reduce funds for their local public schools, local public libraries, police, firefighters, fund road repairs or allow their city to sell bonds for public works projects, etc. Must be a great mystery to you. But it is also the very same process used if taxpayers decide to force the closure of their public library and not foot the bill at all if some insist it must now double as an open-access-to-all internet porn cafe merely because porn is also available in this form of media. And even though public libraries have never and will never provide any access to porn through ANY other form of media. Maybe public libraries have never done that because taxpayers are stupid enough to believe public libraries serve another purpose and function entirely -and you bozos are just the ones to set them straight. LMAO

 

[jillian]

And this is a perfect example of the empty mind that cannot find a sound basis for an argument. Just string together words that adds up to a big nothing.

Taxpayers have the right under the Constitution to decide what they will and will not collectively foot the bill for. Get over it. There is nothing wrong with the people who insist there is no need to change what kinds of information are available to all at a public library. And nothing wrong with those people who insist that just because porn is accessible by a newer form of media doesn't mean public libraries must now provide that access to porn when it doesn't do so for any other kind of media.

There is something wrong with people like YOU who think taxpayers should foot the bill for access to porn just because you are too damn cheap to pay for it yourself. What's the matter? Still haven't figured out why porn shops are called porn shops and not public libraries?

Really? We can decide what we don't want our money used for?? Really? Truly??? Cool beans on a hot griddle!!!

Then I want all my money back that was used to pay Haliburton mercinaries; to pay for studies about the effectiveness of prayer; and to pay for abstinence only education.

Rock and roll!!! Woooo hooooo!!!

*sarcasm off*