ACHTUNG! INTERNET PORN IS VERBOTEN!


PDA






Sindawe
February 17, 2006, 03:25 PM
Policing Porn Is Not Part of Job Description
Montgomery Homeland Security Officers Reassigned After Library Incident

By Cameron W. Barr
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 17, 2006; Page B08

Two uniformed men strolled into the main room of the Little Falls library in Bethesda one day last week and demanded the attention of all patrons using the computers. Then they made their announcement: The viewing of Internet pornography was forbidden.

The men looked stern and wore baseball caps emblazoned with the words "Homeland Security." The bizarre scene unfolded Feb. 9, leaving some residents confused and forcing county officials to explain how employees assigned to protect county buildings against terrorists came to see it as their job to police the viewing of pornography.

After the two men made their announcement, one of them challenged an Internet user's choice of viewing material and asked him to step outside, according to a witness. A librarian intervened, and the two men went into the library's work area to discuss the matter. A police officer arrived. In the end, no one had to step outside except the uniformed men.

They were officers of the security division of Montgomery County's Homeland Security Department, an unarmed force that patrols about 300 county buildings -- but is not responsible for enforcing obscenity laws.

In the post-9/11 era, even suburban counties have homeland security departments. Montgomery County will not specify how many officers are in the department's security division, citing security reasons. Its annual budget, including salaries, is $3.6 million.

Later that afternoon, Montgomery County's chief administrative officer, Bruce Romer, issued a statement calling the incident "unfortunate" and "regrettable" -- two words that bureaucrats often deploy when things have gone awry. He said the officers had been reassigned to other duties.

Romer said the officers believed they were enforcing the county's sexual harassment policy but "overstepped their authority" and had to be reminded that Montgomery "supports the rights of patrons to view the materials of their choice."

The sexual harassment policy forbids the "display of offensive or obscene printed or visual material." But in a library, which is both a public arena and a county workplace, the U.S. Constitution trumps Montgomery's rules.

At most public libraries in the Washington area, an adult can view pornography on a library computer more or less unfettered. Montgomery asks customers to be considerate of others when viewing Web sites. If others are put off, librarians will provide the viewer of the offending material with a "privacy screen."

Fairfax County forbids library use of the Internet to view child pornography or obscene materials or to engage in gambling or fraud. But Fairfax library spokeswoman Lois Kirkpatrick said, "Librarians are not legally empowered to determine obscenity."

D.C. library spokeswoman Monica Lewis said the system is working on guidelines for Internet use, but she added that recessed computer screens generally ensure patrons their privacy.

Although many library systems in the United States use filtering software, the D.C. and Fairfax systems do not, and Montgomery uses such software only on computers available to children. Leslie Burger, president-elect of the American Library Association, said the reality is that "libraries are not the hotbed of looking at porn sites."

Still, Montgomery plans to train its homeland security officers "so they fully understand library policy and its consistency with residents' First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution," Romer said in his statement.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/16/AR2006021602066.html

I have to wonder if these fellows were wearing brown? Can you say "mission creap" or "drunk with power"?

If you enjoyed reading about "ACHTUNG! INTERNET PORN IS VERBOTEN!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
gunsmith
February 17, 2006, 03:35 PM
I wish the Bill of Rights applied to my library.
in Reno the main library is posted...
to bad no one got arrested by those "toy cops" a huge lawsuit could have resulted

El Tejon
February 17, 2006, 03:39 PM
Wonder how Homeland Security defines porn?:confused:

Viewing the Bill of Rights with a lust for liberty in your heart?:D

BenW
February 17, 2006, 03:43 PM
Did the uniforms include brown shirts???

TheEgg
February 17, 2006, 04:11 PM
Did they sing the "Horst Wessel" song?:mad:

Henry Bowman
February 17, 2006, 04:16 PM
Viewing the Bill of Rights with a lust for liberty in your heart?That would be an obscenity!:rolleyes:

edwardyoung
February 17, 2006, 04:19 PM
Boy, what a relief they can still view internet porn at the public library.

rock jock
February 17, 2006, 04:28 PM
In general, the public display of porn is not legal. How is this supposed to be different at a public library?

TallPine
February 17, 2006, 04:31 PM
He said the officers had been reassigned to other duties.
Such as cleaning toliets at the local McDonalds ... ? :neener:

captain obvious
February 17, 2006, 04:33 PM
That must have been really akward, to say the least...:scrutiny:

GTSteve03
February 17, 2006, 04:46 PM
That must have been really akward, to say the least...:scrutiny:
alt-tab... ALT-TAB!! :uhoh:

AirForceShooter
February 17, 2006, 04:52 PM
give a security guy an inch and he thinks he's a ruler.
Sorry ladies I stole it!!!
And I get flamed for wanting the Patriot Act eliminated.

AFS

Seven High
February 17, 2006, 05:01 PM
Did these two men act on their own, or were they sent by a higher authority?

Boats
February 17, 2006, 05:14 PM
Some library patrons just passed up a virtually free wad of taxpayer money.

I would have begged them to arrest me. False arrest. False imprisonment. Civil rights violations under the color of authority.

The Freeholder
February 17, 2006, 05:40 PM
Funny. I thought Barney Fife was a fictional character.

Cosmoline
February 17, 2006, 05:46 PM
Wasn't it Maryland security officials who brought us this bit of wisdom?

http://www.tomorrowlands.org/images/lj/marc_poster_big.jpg

Tag
February 17, 2006, 05:48 PM
I hope someone took the time to laugh at them.

He said the officers had been reassigned to other duties.
Such as cleaning toliets at the local McDonalds ... ?

That's just what I was thinking.

Derby FALs
February 17, 2006, 06:02 PM
Anyone see the DHS agent get picked up during a child sex sting (http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=125308&Disp=9) in Riverside County?

ScottS
February 17, 2006, 06:05 PM
At most public libraries in the Washington area, an adult can view pornography on a library computer more or less unfettered. Montgomery asks customers to be considerate of others when viewing Web sites. If others are put off, librarians will provide the viewer of the offending material with a "privacy screen."Nothing screams "I'm watching Porn here!" like a privacy screen. "Excuse me, Mrs Bluehair, could I have a Privacy Screen? I want to view...English Literature...yeah, that's it. Oh, and can I have a tissue?"

sithanas
February 17, 2006, 07:00 PM
alt-tab... ALT-TAB!! :uhoh:

hahahahaha!

Merkin.Muffley
February 17, 2006, 08:21 PM
Maybe this is what they do when they're not busy trying to catch Bin Laden.

There is no way these two could be this stupid and have gotten a job with Homeland Security. Someone put them up to this.

I was down at my local library the other day, they're moving to a smart card for a library card - the lady at the desk said it would be required to use the computers on the internet. I tried to get some information out of her on if they're putting a reader at every computer - but she didn't know.

gc70
February 17, 2006, 08:46 PM
Wasn't it Maryland security officials who brought us this bit of wisdom?

http://www.tomorrowlands.org/images/lj/marc_poster_big.jpgWow , those images are so familiar - is Maryland outsourcing its poster-making to Russia?

progunner1957
February 17, 2006, 08:55 PM
They were officers of the security division of Montgomery County's Homeland Security Department, an unarmed force that patrols about 300 county buildings -- but is not responsible for enforcing obscenity laws.
Power hungry, pea-brained, control freak LE wannabes with no police powers...:barf: :barf:

Spot77
February 17, 2006, 09:18 PM
Funny how Montgomery County is home base for the legislators that want to take the guns OUT of my safe and put porn INTO the libraries.

LAR-15
February 17, 2006, 09:20 PM
Power hungry, pea-brained, control freak LE wannabes with no police powers...:barf: :barf:

Who said they don't have police powers?

PROOF?

:confused:

Standing Wolf
February 17, 2006, 11:20 PM
After the two men made their announcement, one of them challenged an Internet user's choice of viewing material and asked him to step outside, according to a witness.

Probably just couldn't think of any other way to set up a date for the week end.

spartacus2002
February 17, 2006, 11:31 PM
Welcome to the new America.

Shweboner
February 17, 2006, 11:57 PM
alt-tab... ALT-TAB!! :uhoh:


You aint lying buddy:cool:

torpid
February 18, 2006, 12:03 AM
...first they came for the pornography, but I said nothing because I was too focused on the pornography to notice them...

.

CAnnoneer
February 18, 2006, 12:19 AM
There always are psychos hiding in the wings, waiting for an opportunity to impose their own visions of "propriety" on the unsuspecting public...

texgunner
February 18, 2006, 12:28 AM
Anyone see the DHS agent get picked up during a child sex sting (http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=125308&Disp=9) in Riverside County?

This happened with an LEO here in the Houston area recently.:barf:

Brother in Arms
February 18, 2006, 01:18 AM
First of all I have to agree the Gestapo are all around us.

Secondly that poster that was posted, Looks like ww2 soviet propaganda!! Reminds me of the posters on the buildings in Red Dawn. I think things like this point to the fact that we are all ready in trouble and something to take serious note of. Vigilance is not even the word at this point.

Brother in Arms

ScottS
February 18, 2006, 08:20 AM
...first they came for the pornography, but I said nothing because I was too focused on the pornography to notice them....That there's funny, I don't care who you are.

ravinraven
February 18, 2006, 08:54 AM
There is no way these two could be this stupid and have gotten a job with Homeland Security. Someone put them up to this.


This means that someone stupider is working further up the food chain. How'd he get his job?

USMCRotrHed
February 18, 2006, 09:16 AM
Wonder how Homeland Security defines porn?:confused:

D

The Supreme Court defines porn as "You know it when you see it."

joab
February 18, 2006, 09:25 AM
I have to wonder if these fellows were wearing brown?Ah yes more proof that we live in a Nazi police state, but wait a minuteA librarian intervened, and the two men went into the library's work area to discuss the matter. A police officer arrived. In the end, no one had to step outside except the uniformed men.chief administrative officer, Bruce Romer, issued a statement calling the incident "unfortunate" and "regrettable" -- two words that bureaucrats often deploy when things have gone awry. He said the officers had been reassigned to other duties.Romer said the officers believed they were enforcing the county's sexual harassment policy but "overstepped their authority" and had to be reminded that Montgomery "supports the rights of patrons to view the materials of their choice."Montgomery plans to train its homeland security officers "so they fully understand library policy and its consistency with residents' First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution," Romer said in his statement.
It's the SS run amuk I tell you. Jack Booted Thugs stepping on constitutional rights with impunity:rolleyes:

JohnBT
February 18, 2006, 11:01 AM
"Welcome to the new America."

Nah, it's just Montgomery County MD. More of the same old same old. Monkey county pops up here like a recurring nightmare populated by meddling dogooders.

John
Richard Montgomery H.S., Class of '68

P.S. - I remember when the annual Fireman's Carnival held in front of the high school had a .22 shooting gallery. Now they probably have espresso-sipping contests.

crucible
February 18, 2006, 12:24 PM
Security guards on power trips aside, yea, it's a great thing when my 10 year old daughter is at the library and walks by as some creepy man is looking at bukkake and gang bangs.

That's perfectly okay right? Freedom to look at one wants to in public with no interfering standards and all that.

ConserVet
February 18, 2006, 12:51 PM
There is no way these two could be this stupid and have gotten a job with Homeland Security. Someone put them up to this.


This means that someone stupider is working further up the food chain. How'd he get his job?
:barf: Wow, what a couple of worthless boobs.

You're wrong, Raven. Its absolutely amazing the low caliber of people that get into law enforcement. Really the only requirement these days, other than a pulse, is a clean criminal and financial record. It sucks that buffoons like this tend to overshadow those of us who actually give a rat's ass and try to do right for the citizenry. As a public employee, I take very seriously the fact that I work for American taxpayers.

I'm a corrections officer, and we refer to some of our co-workers as "warm bodies". They're handy for guarding harmless items, carrying heavy objects, and sending on meaningless errands. Its a shame they're employed on John Q. Public's dime.

The two little Hitler's in the story need to be reassigned to something harmless, like checking all the fleet vehicles to make sure all the pretty lights and sirens work.

edwardyoung
February 18, 2006, 03:44 PM
Ah yes more proof that we live in a Nazi police state, but wait a minuteIt's the SS run amuk I tell you. Jack Booted Thugs stepping on constitutional rights with impunity:rolleyes:

I'm not sure if there's a lot of sarcasm being interjected here, or do some of you really think that degenerate scum looking at pornography in the library is some kind of noble pursuit that the Founding Fathers fought and died to guarantee. Let them buy their own computers and stay at home. Objectification of women is not something worthy of praise or defense.

MechAg94
February 18, 2006, 04:06 PM
Personally, I would rather see the library get rid of the public use computers if they can't figure out how to restrict viewing of pornographic material. I would rather not have my tax dollars paying for that. You wouldn't think it would be that difficult to restrict it. Probably some idiot judge told them they couldn't. You can read whatever you want in the library. I don't care. However, the library doesn't carry porn magazines do they? Why should they allow this on their computers? If you want internet privacy, get your own computer. Used computers are cheap and dial up is cheap.

Were these two guys federal agents? Or just local guys? Sounds like nothing really happened in the end though.

You can read and view whatever you want, but my tax dollars don't have to pay for it. If it is not in the library, you can buy it or obtain it yourself.

c_yeager
February 18, 2006, 04:26 PM
Security guards on power trips aside, yea, it's a great thing when my 10 year old daughter is at the library and walks by as some creepy man is looking at bukkake and gang bangs.

That's perfectly okay right? Freedom to look at one wants to in public with no interfering standards and all that.

Yes, it is perfectly OK, if you want your daughter sheltered from the world, then you need to do the sheltering, not the state.

ScottS
February 18, 2006, 04:50 PM
Personally, I would rather see the library get rid of the public use computers if they can't figure out how to restrict viewing of pornographic material. I would rather not have my tax dollars paying for that. You wouldn't think it would be that difficult to restrict it. Probably some idiot judge told them they couldn't. You can read whatever you want in the library. I don't care. However, the library doesn't carry porn magazines do they? Why should they allow this on their computers? If you want internet privacy, get your own computer. Used computers are cheap and dial up is cheap. I agree! And you shouldn't be allowed to look at gay sites, either. Or any site that anything to do with religion! The library doesn't carry religious magazines, do they? And, especially not anything Jewish! Because I think that objectifies Jews, and I don't want my tax dollars going for that. And No Guns or gun-related sites!! The library doesn't carry gun magazines, so no gun sites. No highroad.org!

If you're going to have public computers for public use, then you can hardly start deciding what's OK and what's not. Who's to say what's porn and what's not? Is Maxim's website? How about Victoria's Secret? Frederick of Hollywood? Some people consider guns to be pornographic, and to objectify violence. Brady site, that's OK, though, because that's the right side of "common sense" gun issues. That attitude OK by you?...do some of you really think that degenerate scum looking at pornography in the library is some kind of noble pursuit that the Founding Fathers fought and died to guarantee. Let them buy their own computers and stay at home. Objectification of women is not something worthy of praise or defense.Unfortunately for you, that's exactly the type of freedom the Founding Fathers had in mind, and there are plenty of SCOTUS ruling to reinforce it.

By the way, book burnin's going to be Thursday next week instead of Tuesday, on account of the heresy trial and witch burning. Mark your calendars accordingly.

edwardyoung
February 18, 2006, 04:53 PM
I agree! And you shouldn't be allowed to look at gay sites, either. Or any site that anything to do with religion! The library doesn't carry religious magazines, do they? And, especially not anything Jewish! Because I think that objectifies Jews, and I don't want my tax dollars going for that. And No Guns or gun-related sites!! The library doesn't carry gun magazines, so no gun sites. No highroad.org!

If you're going to have public computers for public use, then you can hardly start deciding what's OK and what's not. Who's to say what's porn and what's not? Is Maxim's website? How about Victoria's Secret? Frederick of Hollywood? Some people consider guns to be pornographic, and to objectify violence. Brady site, that's OK, though, because that's the right side of "common sense" gun issues. That attitude OK by you?Unfortunately for you, that's exactly the type of freedom the Founding Fathers had in mind, and there are plenty of SCOTUS ruling to reinforce it.

By the way, book burnin's going to be Thursday next week instead of Tuesday, on account of the heresy trial and witch burning. Mark your calendars accordingly.

Personal attack removed

torpid
February 18, 2006, 04:56 PM
I'm not sure if there's a lot of sarcasm being interjected here, or do some of you really think that degenerate scum looking at pornography in the library is some kind of noble pursuit that the Founding Fathers fought and died to guarantee. Let them buy their own computers and stay at home. Objectification of women is not something worthy of praise or defense.

Do you really think that allowing women to have the vote is some kind of noble pursuit that the Founding Fathers fought and died to guarantee? Let them rely on the wisdom of their husbands and stay at home cooking dinner for when the men return from voting. Suffrage of women is not something worthy of praise or defense.

(a lot of sarcasm being interjected here...)

.

ScottS
February 18, 2006, 04:57 PM
I guess the hit degenerate scum barks.Does this sentence even make any sense?

torpid
February 18, 2006, 04:59 PM
Does this sentence even make any sense?

Yes, he just called you degenerate scum and a dog, I believe.

.

Derby FALs
February 18, 2006, 05:02 PM
I'm not sure if there's a lot of sarcasm being interjected here, or do some of you really think that degenerate scum looking at pornography in the library is some kind of noble pursuit that the Founding Fathers fought and died to guarantee. Let them buy their own computers and stay at home. Objectification of women is not something worthy of praise or defense.

Bet you didn't know that women account for 80% of the XXX video rentals.:neener:

edwardyoung
February 18, 2006, 05:04 PM
Bet you didn't know that women account for 80% of the XXX video rentals.:neener:


They've come a long way, Baby.

ScottS
February 18, 2006, 05:12 PM
Yes, he just called you degenerate scum and a dog, I believe.Ah, yes, the intellectual approach to argument. Very nice. Too bad THR isn't a moderated forum.

...wait a minute!

albanian
February 18, 2006, 05:14 PM
"Security guards on power trips aside, yea, it's a great thing when my 10 year old daughter is at the library and walks by as some creepy man is looking at bukkake and gang bangs.

That's perfectly okay right? Freedom to look at one wants to in public with no interfering standards and all that."
_________________________________________________________________

My main branch library seems to have become a homeless shelter and weirdo hang out when I wasn't looking. It seems of urine and there are always badly behaved kids with no parents in sight. It is one of the last places I want to visit but I still don't want to Gestapo to patrol it.

I think the main point was not if people should be allow to view porn on library computers but rather who should stop them. Homeland Security did not have the power to do what they tried to do. That is all this is about. Lets not confuse the issue.

It is people that can't separate issues that are to blame for a lot of the problems we have right now. Bin Laden does not equal Saddam. Some people are just to dim to get it.:rolleyes: Just because something is "wrong" doesn't make it illegal. Even if it is illegal, you still have to have to go through the proper channels to get things done. People that scream that they want crime stopped and they don't care how it is stopped will get Nazi style enforcement. If you give the police too much power, they are going to use it.

joab
February 18, 2006, 05:32 PM
I'm not sure if there's a lot of sarcasm being interjected here, or do some of you really think that degenerate scum looking at pornography in the library is some kind of noble pursuit that the Founding Fathers fought and died to guarantee. Let them buy their own computers and stay at home. Objectification of women is not something worthy of praise or defense.Not sure why you referenced my post when making that one. What does one have to do with the other. I made or implied neither support nor condemnation of any kind for porn in my statement (post #36)

My post directly relates to those that are calling the county out for the actions of two men that have been "reassigned" probably to very menial duties where they can't cause anymore problems until they are fired or retrained

Nobody's civil rights were violated because others employed by the county stepped in and protected them like we should expect our cops to do.

So why the Nazi Brown Shirt references, why not ask if they had to keep their one cartridge in their shirt pocket.

I just don't see how the actions of two employees who were superseded on the spot by local cops and library officials and later disciplined for their actions points to a police state.

Maybe my tinfoil hat isn't on tight enough

Strings
February 18, 2006, 07:52 PM
Yeah joab, ya need to add a couple more twists there... ;)

as for this: "I guess the hit degenerate scum barks."

WOW... I don't think I've EVER seen a better example of the ad hominim attack. Now, could you please open your mind to the basic concept that not everyone shares your moral views?

joab
February 18, 2006, 08:45 PM
Yeah joab, ya need to add a couple more twists there... What "twists have I added? Unless actually addressing the article provided without the obligatory simplistic Nazi references is a new twist to you.

Did the librarian not stop the customers from being taken outside?
Did the police not support her and have the HLS agents leave?
Did their superior not condemn their actions?
Has he not taken steps to see that tis sort of thing does not happen again?

What twists are you imagining?
Where are the Nazis?

MechAg94
February 18, 2006, 08:46 PM
I agree! And you shouldn't be allowed to look at gay sites, either. Or any site that anything to do with religion! The library doesn't carry religious magazines, do they? And, especially not anything Jewish! Because I think that objectifies Jews, and I don't want my tax dollars going for that. And No Guns or gun-related sites!! The library doesn't carry gun magazines, so no gun sites. No highroad.org!

If you're going to have public computers for public use, then you can hardly start deciding what's OK and what's not. Who's to say what's porn and what's not? Is Maxim's website? How about Victoria's Secret? Frederick of Hollywood? Some people consider guns to be pornographic, and to objectify violence. Brady site, that's OK, though, because that's the right side of "common sense" gun issues. That attitude OK by you?Unfortunately for you, that's exactly the type of freedom the Founding Fathers had in mind, and there are plenty of SCOTUS ruling to reinforce it.

By the way, book burnin's going to be Thursday next week instead of Tuesday, on account of the heresy trial and witch burning. Mark your calendars accordingly.

IMHO, if a city or town is paying for library for you to enjoy, they should have a right to restrict what is in it. If for some reason they can't restrict internet porn use, then fine, get rid of the computers. I don't see why the library needs to pay for that anyway. If you don't want restrictions, buy the material yourself. It is widely available and I am sure you can find discount prices. No one is stopping you from buying it. I would just prefer that you not require that my tax dollars pay for it. If you don't like it, work to elect a city council that agrees with you. It looks like a lot of cities already have.

I always find it amuzing that so many people think they have a right to stuff that other people are paying for.

That being said, Homeland security has no business enforcing this stuff. If the city or the library want to restrict computer use, they can do that themselves. The Feds have no business doing it.

det.pat
February 18, 2006, 08:59 PM
if the city or town is paying for it, then you shouldn't be able to view gun related sites on them. the problem is, who gets to decide whats objectionable. you don't like naked people, the next guy doesn't like guns, the next guy doesn't like catcher in the rye. if somebody wants to view porn, who cares! you don't like it, don't look. not to mention that we all [almost] pay taxes and then "others" aren't the only ones paying for it. i pay taxes and if someone wants to tell me what i can't view, he may get a foot in his ass. seems to me that the only difference between those guys and some others is what they want to ban. too many folks are only interested in freedom for what THEY approve of.
pat

MechAg94
February 18, 2006, 09:05 PM
Well, in this Republic, the elected representatives make that decision. I would rather them make it than see some judge interpreting his version of what the Constitution says and saying no one can make a decision. Some cities will go overboard some won't. It is part of the political process.

Of course, that is my opinion. I am sure that courts have disagreed even though I think they are wrong some of the time.

Just to clarify, I think gun rights are in the Constitution. Viewing Internet Porn is not. Therefore, it falls back on the people and the local govt funding the library.

Strings
February 18, 2006, 09:17 PM
I love it when things get misunderstood... :rolleyes:

>What "twists have I added?<

My comment about "twists" was aimed at this: "Maybe my tinfoil hat isn't on tight enough". So add a couple more twists to it to tighten it up. Funny, ha ha?

joab
February 18, 2006, 09:19 PM
My comment about "twists" was aimed at this: "Maybe my tinfoil hat isn't on tight enough". So add a couple more twists to it to tighten it up. Funny, ha ha?Well it would have been funny if I had had my tinfoil hat on instead of my ass hat when I read the comment.

I've done that twice in one week now, maybe I need to atke a break.

Strings
February 18, 2006, 09:24 PM
>Well it would have been funny if I had had my tinfoil hat on instead of my ass hat when I read the comment.<

'Sok Joab... we still love ya...

Well... like ya...

Ok... we tolerate that you're breathing our air. Good enough? :neener:

ScottS
February 18, 2006, 09:47 PM
IMHO, if a city or town is paying for library for you to enjoy, they should have a right to restrict what is in it. If for some reason they can't restrict internet porn use, then fine, get rid of the computers. I don't see why the library needs to pay for that anyway. If you don't want restrictions, buy the material yourself. It is widely available and I am sure you can find discount prices. No one is stopping you from buying it. I would just prefer that you not require that my tax dollars pay for it. If you don't like it, work to elect a city council that agrees with you. It looks like a lot of cities already have. "IMHO, if a city or town is paying for library for you to enjoy, they should have a right to restrict what is in it. If for some reason they can't restrict internet religious, gun, Republican, Democratic, Mormon, Wiccan, Progressive, Vegetarian, Homeschool use, then fine, get rid of the computers. I don't see why the library needs to pay for that anyway. If you don't want restrictions, buy the material yourself. It is widely available and I am sure you can find discount prices. No one is stopping you from buying it. I would just prefer that you not require that my tax dollars pay for it. If you don't like it, work to elect a city council that agrees with you. It looks like a lot of cities already have."

They went to all that trouble to ratify that whole Constitution thing, we should use it.

Chrontius
February 18, 2006, 10:05 PM
Personally, I would rather see the library get rid of the public use computers if they can't figure out how to restrict viewing of pornographic material. I would rather not have my tax dollars paying for that. You wouldn't think it would be that difficult to restrict it. Probably some idiot judge told them they couldn't. You can read whatever you want in the library. I don't care. However, the library doesn't carry porn magazines do they? Why should they allow this on their computers? If you want internet privacy, get your own computer. Used computers are cheap and dial up is cheap.

That was the supreme court, IIRC, after the best filtering proved that it could not distinguish 'breast cancer self exam' from 'giant breasts naked whores'.

Besides that, they block 2600.com at my local library. I won't subscribe to that, but I buy every issue when it comes out (with cash).

Bigreno
February 18, 2006, 11:55 PM
IMHO, if a city or town is paying for library for you to enjoy, they should have a right to restrict what is in it. If for some reason they can't restrict internet porn use, then fine, get rid of the computers.

The thing is, the "city" isn't paying for the computers. You are (ie the citizens). Those are your tax dollars coming from your paycheck providing services for your community. When everyone is chipping into the pot, It's not right to allow one person to set the rules.

On a personal level I find viewing porn on a public computer vile and repugnant. That is my opinion and worth what I paid for it. However, my personal opinion does not give me the right to regulate how someone else uses the resources that their tax dollars support. As long as it is for their own viewing and not beiing made available to minors then it is their business what kind of material they view.

Art Eatman
February 19, 2006, 12:20 AM
Closed by Degenerate Scum.

If you enjoyed reading about "ACHTUNG! INTERNET PORN IS VERBOTEN!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!