[asdaf]

With the new Supreme Court decision upholding the Childrens Internet Protection Act most libraries in the country will be installing internet filters. Although CIPA mandates filtering only for sex related sites, all of the filters that I was able to check in a brief surfing session this morning also have a "violence" or similarly named category. Activating this category will block firearms related sites such as this one. I'm going to keep an eye on my local library to make sure that legitimate, first amendment protected, political speech isn't censored by mistake.

I trust librarians to oppose censorship in general. However, when they are forced to censor anyway I fear that a few might be tempted to block those evil guns as well as the smut- after all it's for the children.

Hopefully I'm being alarmist, but I'm going to keep my eyes open just in case.

[Tropical Z]

I agree with you 100%.

[pytron]

The librarians I know dispise internet filtering. I can think they would be more than happy to let more sites through.

-Pytron

[Standing Wolf]

If there's a way leftist extremists can silence people who fail to fall for their illusions, they'll find it.

[rock jock]

I really could care less what librarians think. As long as my tax dollars are being used to support my local public library, I don't want some middle-aged perv watching porn mpegs next to a group of kids reading the Hardy Boys.

Now, if you find a librarian blocking political discussion or gun-related sites, that is a legitimate complaint and should be brought to the attention of the administrator. But I don't think there is any basis for drawing a comparison between porn and guns in this case.

[jimpeel]

The cure for the porn dilemma is simple. In addition to the site extensions of .com, .org, .net, .gov, .edu, etc, simply add one called .xxx. This would eliminate the overlap of the filter programs which disallow going to sites on breast cancer, testicular cancer, etc.

Of course, laymen don't think like politicians so this idea is DOA, FOB, Washington, DC.

[JeanC]

Apparently there was talk of .adu for adult sites, but there was some kind of politics going on in the community that comes up with the extensions and nothing came of it, which is a pity.

Simple solution to libraries having to put on filters. Disallow anyone under the age of 18 in the building unless they have either mummy or daddy in tow. It is the parents responsibility to babysit their kids, not the library's.

[Waitone]

I don't think taxpayers should be paying for public libraries. Far too may ideological, religious, civil, legal and moral fights are breaking out.

You wanna read a book? Either purchase a membership in a private library OR BUY THE BOOK YOURSELF AND PUT IT IN YOUR PERSONAL LIBRARY.

[BowStreetRunner]

i wonder how long it will take for them to dtart blocking religious sites too?
BSR

[rock jock]

Libraries are one of the great institutions of America and are one of the very best ways that young people can spend their time. They are one of the few good uses of tax dollarts since they both help to stimulate interest in learning and keep kids from getting into trouble. Many of the children that preuse libraries don't have those resources available to them in their homes, or during summers.

I don't think taxpayers should be paying for public libraries. Far too may ideological, religious, civil, legal and moral fights are breaking out.
These fights will occur with every institution, public or private. Running away from the problem is not a solution at all.

Disallow anyone under the age of 18 in the building unless they have either mummy or daddy in tow. It is the parents responsibility to babysit their kids, not the library's.
So you would prohibit the very demographic group at whom the library is primarily intended and whom benefits the most from its resources because someone wants to download porn.

How about we simply let a community set standards for themselves on what they will or will not allow?

[cordex]

Mandating the use of .adu and .xxx extensions for "porn" or "adult oriented material" is impractical for a number of reasons, not the least of which is making the determination of what must be hosted under those domains. Yeah, I'm sure you all know it when you see it, but that's just a little too arbitrary to work. Personally, I don't support gov't definition of what someone can put on their domain. If you buy a domain name and server space, you should be able to put children's stories or hardcore porn as you see fit. If I don't want to look at your content, I won't.

The simple solution is for parents to take better responsibility for their children, not to pass more laws.
These fights will occur with every institution, public or private. Running away from the problem is not a solution at all.
Right, but I don't care if your private institution creates arbitrary designations for what is appropriate to look at. I do start to care when precident is set regarding government sanctioned and enforced censorship.

(edit ... I meant private institution, not public. is difference)

[rock jock]

Right, but I don't care if your public institution creates arbitrary designations for what is appropriate to look at. I do start to care when precident is set regarding government sanctioned and enforced censorship.
Well, I agree that the feds should probably not be making these decisions, but ultimately, it will be the govt. at some level, either state or local, and at these levels, especially local, they will reflect community standards, which is exactly the way it should be.

[cordex]

Well, I agree that the feds should probably not be making these decisions, but ultimately, it will be the govt. at some level, either state or local, and at these levels, especially local, they will reflect community standards, which is exactly the way it should be.
Just fine and dandy until "community standards" turn against shooting and carrying firearms and such. If you only start fighting when they attack the civil rights that are important to you then you've already lost.

I propose that if parents kept an eye on their kids, there would be no problem with unfiltered access on library computers. Moreover, I propose that there are plenty of non-internet materials that violate "community standards" for children that can be found in most libraries. If you don't feel comfortable giving kids access to shelves of books with copies of the Kama Sutra, and unfiltered internet access, perhaps you shouldn't leave them unsupervised at the library. Gov't is a poor substitute for mommie and daddy.

Just my opinion.

[rock jock]

If you only start fighting when they attack the civil rights that are important to you then you've already lost.
There is no "civil right" to view porn in a public venue. This is the same argument I hear from the antis. The difference is that guns are Constitutionally protected.

If you don't feel comfortable giving kids access to shelves of books with copies of the Kama Sutra, and unfiltered internet access, perhaps you shouldn't leave them unsupervised at the library. Gov't is a poor substitute for mommie and daddy.
1) I doubt my local library has the Kama Sutra and if does, it should be pulled; 2) children need to know about books like that in order to go exploring for them, most kids don't, but everyone knows about the Internet; 3) an adult can peruse the Kama Sutra in a cubbyhole in the library and no one is the wiser, the Internet is there for all to see.

The problem with your argument is that it points out the hypocrisy of the libertarian philosophy - "Whatever standards I have should be perfectly legal and fine, but if a community wants to set some standards for themselves, that's unacceptable", or "Good for me, but not for thee."

[jsalcedo]

If all gun related sites had were relegated to .gun they would be easier to find.

But I really don't think this is the way to go because then every single facet of the internet would have their own extension and information would be impossible to find.

[cordex]

There is no "civil right" to view porn in a public venue. This is the same argument I hear from the antis.
I agree. "There is no 'civil right' to view porn in a public venue" is the same argument as one might hear from the antis, who might say "There is no 'civil right' to carry a handgun in a public venue".

Very good point.
The difference is that guns are Constitutionally protected.
I agree that guns are Constitutionally protected.
I doubt my local library has the Kama Sutra and if does, it should be pulled;
Hrm ... I see. Any other religous or pseudo-religious works that might be considered pornographic that need to be pulled? Song of Solomon, anyone?
Art?

Again, we're getting down to the "I know it when I see it" bit that doesn't work when you're censoring stuff on a governmental scale.
2) children need to know about books like that in order to go exploring for them, most kids don't, but everyone knows about the Internet;
Pesky computerized library catalog! Nowadays, even if Little Johnny doesn't understand Dewey's delightful decimal system, he can still type "sex" into a (non-internet enabled) computer terminal and see exactly where to find books on the subject.
3) an adult can peruse the Kama Sutra in a cubbyhole in the library and no one is the wiser, the Internet is there for all to see.
So the obvious solution is "there oughta be a law!"? *shrug* We think differently.

How about to get access to a private computer terminal (say, one in a cubbyhole) you have to be 18+, otherwise you use an open terminal and sign an agreement to avoid such sites?

There, now that wasn't so hard, was it?
The problem with your argument is that it points out the hypocrisy of the libertarian philosophy - "Whatever standards I have should be perfectly legal and fine, but if a community wants to set some standards for themselves, that's unacceptable",
What now?
We're not talking about a community setting standards for themselves - or there would be no debate. We're talking about a legislative effort to set standards for and to control others. If you can't control yourself on the internet, then buy a filter for your home computer and avoid terminals without one. Make sense?
or "Good for me, but not for thee."
This doesn't even relate to what you were attempting to paraphrase.
Your "hypocritical libertarian" bit would be better paraphrased as "Good for me. Go do as ye would do. Nunnamybizness."

As I said before, if you want filters on a private library's computer, or your personal systems at home ... enjoy! If you want to pull the Kama Sutra, or Song of Solomon, or pictures of Michelangelo's David from a private collection ... that's the business of the owner.

Waitone had a very good point when he said:
I don't think taxpayers should be paying for public libraries. Far too may ideological, religious, civil, legal and moral fights are breaking out.
You don't want to give money to a library that contains anything you find objectionable, Joe Patriot don't want to give money to a library that doesn't carry a copy of the Constitution, Alamander Marx doesn't want to give money to a library that contains anything but the works of Lenin.
Maybe we should look into private libraries than?

jsalcedo
If all gun related sites had were relegated to .gun they would be easier to find.

But I really don't think this is the way to go because then every single facet of the internet would have their own extension and information would be impossible to find.
And where would you find information on shooting in the nude? So very confusing.

[tyme]

So people can't do porn research at a library because there are bums who search for porn all day and the SCOTUS sez "porn bad?" That's ridiculous. As has been pointed out, lots of libraries carry porn periodicals (to be kind). What's next? Shall we pull Gray's Anatomy from the shelves? Encyclopedias have entries for "sex" you know. Maybe we should burn all the books. Lots and lots of fiction have between mild and graphic descriptions of sex. Yeah, that's it. Let's burn the books. And hey, we can start with Unintended Consequences. Imagine a 12-year-old reading about the incident with ... The horror! Some of these books, and magazines with similar material or worse, are sold in grocery and drug stores. Where is the outcry over those destroyers of children?

Idiotic SCOTUS justices shouldn't be upholding these kinds of rules for anyone. Considering some of them don't know a web filter from a coffee filter, I find it hard to take their decision seriously.

web-filtering rule #1: you can't filter images except based on filename or in some cases meta-information in the images themselves, both of which can be made to look innocuous.
corollary: the only way you can filter porn is through words near the images (see 2 paragraphs up) or by url (whitehouse.com anyone?).

If I was a librarian I'd be sure to hang out near the web proxy that was set up to "save the children," and you can bet that I'd quickly develop a nervous tick that would cause me to kick the power cord every few minutes. You can also bet that I'd kick bums off the computers at the first sign that they intended to surf for porn. Filtering is simply not the solution to the problem except long-term, assuming someone can build a reliable image filtering mechanism.

If anyone finds this site is filtered at least for the near future, pm me and I'll do anything I can reasonably do to help get around the filter.

[jsalcedo]

__________________________________________________________
And where would you find information on shooting in the nude? So very confusing.
_________________________________________________________

Hot brass! Hot Brass! Ow! Ow! Thats going to leave a mark.

[cordex]

web-filtering rule #1: you can't filter images except based on filename or in some cases meta-information in the images themselves, both of which can be made to look innocuous.
That's not entirely true. I've seen some interesting algorithms that attempt to determine the percentage of fleshtones in an image. Granted, it lets some by and filters content that should be acceptable (depending on severity of the settings, can go more or less either way), but the technology is out there.
Hot brass! Hot Brass! Ow! Ow! Thats going to leave a mark.
See? This is important information that we have to get out there. Don't want to confuse the nice people by making them have to search all of .gun and .nud trying to find where it is.

[bjengs]

Well said, cordex. I suppose some people think the 1st amendment is the Official Amendment of the "Lefties," and somehow the 2nd amendment is the Official Amendment of the "Righties."

[Chupacabra]

While not completely related to public libraries, I have a little experience with this kind of situation.

I work at a University Library and we occasionally get people that come in a surf porn sites on our public terminals. We frown upon it but it isn't against library policy. If another patron has a problem with it, we ask the person viewing the porn to move to another terminal that isn't in direct view. So far it's worked pretty well. This person could very well be doing research and it's none of our business...as long as they aren't bothering anyone there won't be a problem.

Now it's the crazies who come in late at night, find the most secluded terminal, and begin...er...uh...handling themselves in a most inappropriate way that we have a problem with. Fortunetly that type of situation rarely happens and the campus police respond very quickly. The individual will get banned from the library and booted off campus. If they come back they get arrested for trespassing.

ANYWAY...

IMO, a strong library staff presense and just communicating with patrons that feel uncomfortable goes a lot farther than banning and arbitrary filtering.

But of course that's probably to logical huh?

:rolleyes:

[Duncan Idaho]

So people can't do porn research at a library because there are bums who search for porn all day and the SCOTUS sez "porn bad?" Whole lot of hand wringing over nothing.

Children will no longer be afforded unrestricted porn access at the library on my dime.

Uncle/Aunty pervies that want to look at porn - uh.. for uh...research :barf: - in front of children in the library - on my dime - will actually have to ask the librarian to suspend the filter in order to be able to access porn in public.

So, adults merely have to ask for the filter to be turned off, and it will be.

Wow! Really big drama. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

How about everyone that wants to do "research" goes out and secures their own damned "rights" with their own damned money?

Then again, I'm pretty sure that most of the "researchers" would miss being able to goggle at all of the kids in the room while they "work".

How on Earth did my country become so horribly warped? :fire: :banghead: :fire:

[Gordon Fink]

When people realized that freedom could be dangerous or at least mildly offensive on occasion.

~G. Fink

[erikm]

:fire: Censorship :fire: I hate it.

Given that libraries unfortunately have to enforce this :cuss: I would ask them to set up an 'opt out' policy. Basically, they should set things up so staff can (and will) disable filtering to terminals on request.

It goes without saying that all usage information gets shredded at midnight or close of business. There's no reason for libraries to keep usage information where the feds might find them :D

Talk to your library. They might go along with something like this. IIRC the act was not popular.

Cheers,
ErikM :evil:

[Gray Fox]

They don't have to enforce anything. They could simply forgot federal E-rate funding.

[rock jock]

You don't want to give money to a library that contains anything you find objectionable, Joe Patriot don't want to give money to a library that doesn't carry a copy of the Constitution, Alamander Marx doesn't want to give money to a library that contains anything but the works of Lenin.
Great idea. One group of folks could get together and fund a library with a set of standards they like, another could set fund a library with a completely different set of standards. Eventually, the two groups would disassociate geographically and politically and set stadards for themselves on other issues as well. They might even call themselves "communities" and......oh wait......we already have those, don't we? And if someone finds themselves in a community that doesn't agree with their set of standards, he/she could actually move to a different community. What a novel concept! Community autonomy without federal interference.

"Good for me. Go do as ye would do. Nunnamybizness."
Not quite the position you are taking though, is it? A community wants to set their own standards and all the sudden it becomes very much your business.

[Master Blaster]

Censoring what is viewable in the library is like wrapping the world in a big foam rubber pad, so we children dont hurt ourselves.

I dont want Big MOMMY to decide what I can or cannot read, nor do I want them to monitor it.

Personal responsibility is the key, Parents need to be responsible for their children and for themselves.

My first experience with pornography, was a Playboy found by me and my friends at a construction site near my house when we were 8 years old.

There are lots of objectionable and innappropraite things for children on Cable tv, we dont let our kids watch them.

You cant wrap the world in foam rubber, Your children will grow up and then what???.

[rock jock]

Personal responsibility is the key, Parents need to be responsible for their children and for themselves.
That responsibility is undermined when porn is viewed in a public forum. At home, at their school, parents have an element of control and should exercise it. However, in public, that control is limited. Furthermore, parents have no obligation, nor should they, to shield their children from objectionable material in public.

[cordex]

Great idea. One group of folks could get together and fund a library with a set of standards they like, another could set fund a library with a completely different set of standards. Eventually, the two groups would disassociate geographically and politically and set stadards for themselves on other issues as well. They might even call themselves "communities" and......oh wait......we already have those, don't we? And if someone finds themselves in a community that doesn't agree with their set of standards, he/she could actually move to a different community.
Not quite how it works. Maybe you live in a homogenous community with only people who think alike and there is no disagreement on issues such as this. Or if there is any disagreement, it is settled quickly by kicking the minority party out. *shudder* Glad I don't live there.
The real world is different, though. The idea behind a private library is that funding is freely given or taken away. The investors and clients can decide whether or not to contribute. So if they've got porn, you can decide not to patronize 'em.
A public library does not allow the same discrimination as the funds are taken from the members of the community whether they agree with the contents or not.
What a novel concept! Community autonomy without federal interference.
The feds aren't the only ones who meddle in areas they have no business screwing around in.
Not quite the position you are taking though, is it? A community wants to set their own standards and all the sudden it becomes very much your business.
If the community is setting standards for themselves, I have no problem. But again, that's not what this is about. The "community" (or an influential group) is attempting to set rules and standards for everyone else. Otherwise, as I said, there would be no debate on this issue.

One more time - pulling books from the library and filtering internet access to it is not controlling your own actions, it is controlling other people's actions.
Pax posted this quote in another thread today:
Since there is no such entity as "the public," since the public is merely a number of individuals, the idea that the public interest" supersedes private interests and rights can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others. – Ayn Rand
parents have no obligation, nor should they, to shield their children from objectionable material in public.
They don't? I disagree, but ...
If this is the case, why do you support exactly this (using heavy-handed and sweeping actions)?

Hmmm...

[CMichael]

I too don't care what the librarians think.

Libraries are being funded with taxpayer money. Taxpayers don't want their money spent in a way that allows porn on a library computer.

Case closed.

[cordex]

I too don't care what the librarians think.

Libraries are being funded with taxpayer money. Taxpayers don't want their money spent in a way that allows porn on a library computer.

Case closed.
*whew*
Thanks CMichael! Glad you know what all taxpayers want and I'm even more glad that all taxpayers agree on this subject. As I personally don't really like the idea of some of what is defined as porn on library computers, I don't have to defend it based on moral principals any more. If everyone who pays for something agrees on it, what's there to argue about?

Makes things so much simpler.

"Case closed" it is then.
:scrutiny:

[rock jock]

The feds aren't the only ones who meddle in areas they have no business screwing around in.
Yes, well, that is where opinion starts and the Constitution ends.

If the community is setting standards for themselves, I have no problem. But again, that's not what this is about. The "community" (or an influential group) is attempting to set rules and standards for everyone else.
No, not for "everyone else", just that community. If a seaprate community wants to set a different set of standards, that is entirely up to them.

Or if there is any disagreement, it is settled quickly by kicking the minority party out. *shudder* Glad I don't live there.
Nobody is "kicked out". They simply acquiesce to the will of others, or they leave, i.e., unless it is a matter of fundamental rights. In this case, public display of porn is not a fundamental right.

A public library does not allow the same discrimination as the funds are taken from the members of the community whether they agree with the contents or not.
Precisely. The fact that the members of community fund the library is exactly why that community has the right to set their own standards. Now you're catching on!

it is controlling other people's actions.
No, when their viewing of objectionable material becomes public, it is no longer a privacy issue. Thier rights end where my own begin.

If this is the case, why do you support exactly this (using heavy-handed and sweeping actions)?
As I said before, it should be left up to the community, so I do not entirely agree with this decision. However, my point was that parents should not have to supervise what their children see in a public forum because objectionable material doesn't belong there in the first place.

[cordex]

RockJock,
Allow me to address the fundamental problem with your argument:
Thier rights end where my own begin.
You don't have the right to not be offended.
public display of porn is not a fundamental right.
What about free access by a taxpayer to the materials that are purchased through use of his or her tax monies? Somehow, you seem to think that all materials accessed via the internet in any library are immedately shunted into the eyes of poor unprotected children. This is not true (unless your library's layout is drastically different from mine).
The fact that the members of community fund the library is exactly why that community has the right to set their own standards.
Again, you're using "community" as a homogenous entity with one will. It's not.
It's made up of individuals who are capable of making choices on their own. Until you realize that, you're going to be stuck in the nanny-state mindset.
parents should not have to supervise what their children see in a public forum because objectionable material doesn't belong there in the first place.
It is not the responsibility of Uncle Sam and his nanny squad to determine what your children see and hear when they are in public. It is the responsiblity of the parents.

You going to complain to the gov't if the KKK tries to hold a rally? That's much more offensive to me than a picture of a naked human. You have the right to object to material, but not to ban objectionable material from all public forums. Just doesn't work like that.

Look, if so much of your community agrees on this issue, why worry about taking money from those that don't? Make it a pseudo-private library funded by the right-thinking "community" that you are so happy about and stop forcing those that disagree to support you.

I'd like to clarify something ...
I'm not trying to justify pervs who want to look at porn on a public computer while Timmy and Sally are watching over his shoulder. Personally, I find it disgusting.

But if you want to provide a public terminal supported by a heterogenous community, you have to realize that those terminals are not yours, nor are they (or should they be) subject to your personal control.

This thread is about the fear of libraries possibly blocking RKBA internet sites with these filters. Most of us find this idea to be absurd because guns do not make us retch. Yet all too many people here are perfectly willing to block whatever they consider repulsive. Well kids, it's not such a big step to blocking all gun related material and makes just about as much sense if you're going on what the support base finds "offensive".

Let's face it, there are some parents that are more afraid of their children seeing a picture of a weapon being fired than a topless woman. Are they right? Not in my book. But chances are good that they pay taxes too.

[rock jock]

Again, you're using "community" as a homogenous entity with one will. It's not. It's made up of individuals who are capable of making choices on their own. Until you realize that, you're going to be stuck in the nanny-state mindset.
I never said that a community is "homogeneous". It doesn't have to be to exercise its will. In fact, all communities exercise their will through their elected officials. The decisions of the community members are represented in the govt. How do you think tax dollars are delegated and decisions made? This is the concept of majority rule and until you realize that, you will always be stuck in a libertarian fantasyland that has no bearing on reality, confined to discussions on the Internet but having no representation anywhere in actual scoiety.

What about free access by a taxpayer to the materials that are purchased through use of his or her tax monies?
His or her tax monies are subject to the will of the governing authorities, which are in turn subject to the will of the members of the community. That is not a matter of debate; it is a fact. Don't believe me? Go tell your elected officials that you want a new taxpayer-funded public pool built next to your house for your personnel convenience because you, afterall, pay your taxes and should get what you want.

You don't have the right to not be offended.
**Sigh** Neither does someone have the right to offend the sensibilities of a community if a free speech issue is not involved. And, as I have stated repeatedly, public viewing of porn is not protected free speech.

It is not the responsibility of Uncle Sam and his nanny squad to determine what your children see and hear when they are in public.
Uncle Sam implies the fed govt. You still can't seem to distinguish between states rights and the rights of the fed govt. Go read the 10th Amendment again.

It is the responsiblity of the parents.
Yes, which they exercise by setting standards along with other members of their community.

[CMichael]

Cordex Thanks CMichael! Glad you know what all taxpayers want and I'm even more glad that all taxpayers agree on this subject. As I personally don't really like the idea of some of what is defined as porn on library computers, I don't have to defend it based on moral principals any more. If everyone who pays for something agrees on it, what's there to argue about?

Happy to help Cordex. Fortunately, there is a scientific method known as polls to conduct public opinion. Politicans then have a duty to act on that opinion.

Libraries are funded by the taxpayers. Therefore, the taxpayers have a right to regulate what is there and what is not there.

[cordex]

This is the concept of majority rule
Mob rule is great when you've got the biggest team. You can't guarantee that this will always be the case. If you can use the system to restrict library access as you want, there's nothing to stop others from using it against you.

Believe me, I know how things work right now. I simply propose that it isn't right. Call that a "libertarian fantasyland" if you want. I'll attempt to refrain from making similar jabs in at your personal philosophy in the future.
Don't believe me? Go tell your elected officials that you want a new taxpayer-funded public pool built next to your house for your personnel convenience because you, afterall, pay your taxes and should get what you want.
I'm not asking for taxpayers to fund my projects. You are.
You want to require that we donate monies to your projects (under threat of force) subject to your jurisdiction.

Tell me, how would you react if your community leaders decided to remove the children's section of the library and replace it with a "World's Raunchiest Porn" exhibit? Would you still be happy that you get to dish out your cash for what the majority wants?
Neither does someone have the right to offend the sensibilities of a community if a free speech issue is not involved. And, as I have stated repeatedly, public viewing of porn is not protected free speech.
First, there is no set definition of what is or is not porn. One man's classical art is another man's pornography, yes? This is important when you're restricting access to it in a public venue.
Second, to my knowledge there is no law against offending sensibilities of anyone. May not be polite, but that's about all that can be said about it.

Tell me .... what would you do about someone who wants to write illustrated erotic stories at a library? And if they want to look for illustrations? Is that protected free speech/press, or should it not be exempted because it offends you?
You still can't seem to distinguish between states rights and the rights of the fed govt. Go read the 10th Amendment again.
Just because state.gov does something oppressive or wrong doesn't make it any less wrong than fed.gov doing it except that it affects fewer people.
Yes, which they exercise by setting standards along with other members of their community.
I'll never understand this burning need to set standards for other people to live by.
"You can't allow porn to be accessed at a library because I might want to ditch my kids at the library unattended, and they might wander over to the computers and either look up porn themselves or stare over someone's shoulder who might view something I don't want them to see."

Like I said, mob rule is great when you're on the biggest team.
There is no constitutionally protected right

[rock jock]

I'll attempt to refrain from making similar jabs in at your personal philosophy in the future.
Too late. You already made the statement that I bought into the "nanny-state" mentality simply because I don't agree with you. I didn't apreciate that comment either.

Believe me, I know how things work right now. I simply propose that it isn't right.
Sorry, but you won't find a single society or people-group that has ever existed in the history of man that doesn't incorporate some form of community-imposed pressure to conform to certain standards. It is the nature of man, and I think, necessary for any society to survive. That is why I call your philosophy a fantasy - it has never worked and never will. Some have tried, but all have failed. You might get it to work with a very small handful of like-minded people in an isolated area that is set apart from any organized nation-state, but even then, you would be hard-pressed to maintain such an anarchist arrangment for very long. I know several folks on this board like to think they could maintain such a society, but in truth it is because they are so philisophically aligned with others that they envision sharing such a society with that there is really no real dissent within the group. In that sense, the lack of any "community" standards in such a society would in fact act as the community standard in and of itself since everyone in this idealized group would be perfectly happy to conform to it. BUT, put a few folks in that group that do not buy into the same anarchist/pure libertarian philisophy as the founders and all heck would break loose. Result: lots of pressure on the part of the newcomers to conform. Face it, you can't fight reality.

I'm not asking for taxpayers to fund my projects. You are.
You want to require that we donate monies to your projects (under threat of force) subject to your jurisdiction.
You keeping saying "me". It is not me that makes these decisions. It is the community as a whole. Furthermore, no one is threatening anyone else. As I said before, if someone doesn't like the community standards, they are under no compulsion to stay.

Tell me, how would you react if your community leaders decided to remove the children's section of the library and replace it with a "World's Raunchiest Porn" exhibit? Would you still be happy that you get to dish out your cash for what the majority wants?
No, I would leave. That is precisely why I don't live in a place like San Francisco which pretty much already allows this. SF residents can go to hell in a handbasket as far as I am concerned and they probably think the same of me living in a conservative southern town. That is fine with me.

Just because state.gov does something oppressive or wrong doesn't make it any less wrong than fed.gov doing it except that it affects fewer people.
Who says it is wrong or oppressive? You? The Constitution gives wide latitude to individual states to make those decisions, not someone who feels they know best for everyone (whether they be in D.C. or on the Internet).

I'll never understand this burning need to set standards for other people to live by.
Ah, thus we come to the crux of the libertarian roadblock in logic. The libertarian definition of a community standard is whatever prevents them from doing what they want. Therefore, "standards" must be removed. The truth is standards are simply rules that dictate what is allowable, permitted, acceptable, tolerated. You want to allow everything. That is your standard and you want to impose it on everyone. You want to prevent people from exercising their own set of standards. I'm sorry, but this is simple arrogance.

[cordex]

Too late. You already made the statement that I bought into the "nanny-state" mentality simply because I don't agree with you. I didn't apreciate that comment either.
To be fair, I did say "in the future."

However, I'd like to apologize for implying that your position of working to exercise control over publically owned equipment based upon what you consider to be objectionable was tantamount to a 'nanny state' mentality. The two are not necessarily equivalent.

I won't address your anti-libertarian diatribe in this thread, as that is not the issue here.
You keeping saying "me". It is not me that makes these decisions. It is the community as a whole.
You are a vociferous defender of this policy, are you not?
"Community as a whole"? Heh. Perhaps it would be better put as "A vocal section of that community sufficient to decide to act on behalf of everyone regardless of views to the contrary."
Furthermore, no one is threatening anyone else. As I said before, if someone doesn't like the community standards, they are under no compulsion to stay.
The threats only come when someone refuses to pay.
Who says it is wrong or oppressive? You?
Why, yes, actually. *grin*
The Constitution gives wide latitude to individual states to make those decisions, not someone who feels they know best for everyone (whether they be in D.C. or on the Internet).
You're trying so very hard to turn this issue around at me and make it look like I'm the one who is working to force by beliefs on everyone else. Ain't like that.
You want to allow everything.
Not true. I merely don't think I should stick my nose in everyone else's business.
That is your standard and you want to impose it on everyone. You want to prevent people from exercising their own set of standards. I'm sorry, but this is simple arrogance.
Again, you're trying to make me look like the oppressive oaf because I don't want to let one group decide how everyone else gets to act.

But, as we all know, this particular act isn't a "community" solution, unless one defines one's community as the whole of the USA.

[rock jock]

You're trying so very hard to turn this issue around at me and make it look like I'm the one who is working to force by beliefs on everyone else.
Actually, you are. The fact that you can't recognize shows how close-minded you are. Sorry, but its true. But don't worry, its a common trait of almost all libertarians I meet. I guess it makes them feel superior. In any case, it comes down to this irreducible concept: we all have belief-systems. You can call them philisophies, world outlooks, or even in extreme cases religions. Your belief system says that is allowable to let anything and everything to occur to society. I know, I know, "as long as it doesn't hurt anybody" (whatever). It doesn't matter if you personally would indulge in every excess, only that you would allow it. My belief system says that a community has the right to set standards for the benefit of its members and for its own survival. Our belief systems are mutually exclusive, so either you are forcing your belief system on me, or vice-versa. Competing belief systems always have and always will war against each other in this world. To say that you are not trying to force your beliefs on anybody is ludicrous when your belief system runs contrary to my own.

But, as we all know, this particular act isn't a "community" solution, unless one defines one's community as the whole of the USA.
As I have already stated, for that reason I disagree with it. BUT, individual communities should be allowed to make that decision.

BTW, not to send this thread OT, but I wonder what your view is on the SCOTUS decision today to strike down state laws banning homosexual behavior. You must be against this, right? Afterall, by doing this, they have imposed a community standard across the entire US that everyone must now follow. They have, in essence, forced their belief-system on everyone, even if don't agree with them.

[bjengs]

Ah, the eternal battle between democracy and liberty. Where democracy believes that anything goes if 51% of the people say it's okay, liberty says "I trust my neighbor to make his own decisions."

It's too bad so many people here think democracy is any sort of solution, because sooner or later they're going to put it to a vote and 60% of the nation is going to vote to ban all of the guns. Of course the dupes will whine "if only my guy was in office" or "if only all of the complainers went to the ballot box..."

[Duncan Idaho]

Personal responsibility is the key, Parents need to be responsible for their children and for themselves.Exactly! Pay for your own porn, or pay for your own childs porn. Don't steal the money from me to do it, or complain if I want a say in the rules, when you are using my money for your kids to view porn in the library!

[cordex]

Actually, you are. The fact that you can't recognize shows how close-minded you are. Sorry, but its true. But don't worry, its a common trait of almost all libertarians I meet.
Of course I'm pointing out how you're trying to force your beliefs on others. I never claimed I wasn't. You're from the "This has the potential to offend me and my clique, thus we should pass a law against it." camp ... using the rule of law to push your beliefs on others, yes?
Your belief system says that is allowable to let anything and everything to occur to society. I know, I know, "as long as it doesn't hurt anybody" (whatever). It doesn't matter if you personally would indulge in every excess, only that you would allow it.
Close enough.
My belief system says that a community has the right to set standards for the benefit of its members and for its own survival. Our belief systems are mutually exclusive, so either you are forcing your belief system on me, or vice-versa. Competing belief systems always have and always will war against each other in this world. To say that you are not trying to force your beliefs on anybody is ludicrous when your belief system runs contrary to my own.
I'm going to absolutely blow your mind.
Guess what?
Our belief systems don't have to be mutually exclusive. Wow ... hope I'm not harshin' your buzz, but you read me right ... our two beliefs can live together in perfect harmony.

It all hinges on the definition of "community" and how community standards are set and enforced. See, if you define community by those of like mind and purpose in a general geographic area, it's all good. The problem only arises when one "community"decides to use "community" to define a physical area and warp all those who live there to fit it's particular idea of what's good and righteous by passing laws forcing them to behave in a certain manner (or else). So rather than a community being made up of those who agree, it is defined by a physical area and those within that area are required to behave in a certain manner (not carry a handgun in local parks, not look at porn on a library system ... whatever happens to be the case).

Now, if your philosophy does oblige you to control the actions of those in a given geographic area merely because they are in said area, then our positions are mutually exclusive.
not to send this thread OT, but I wonder what your view is on the SCOTUS decision today to strike down state laws banning homosexual behavior. You must be against this, right? Afterall, by doing this, they have imposed a community standard across the entire US that everyone must now follow. They have, in essence, forced their belief-system on everyone, even if don't agree with them.
Huh? I think you've got that backwards. See, allowing something isn't forcing everyone to behave in a certain manner (punishing them if they don't perform an action or punishing them if they do perform an action). Are there some things that must be prohibited? Certainly! Just not as many as we have now, or as some here want. You seem to have the idea that any action that is permitted with which you disagree is forcing someone else's beliefs on you. That's false. Beliefs are internal. Beliefs forced on other people are called laws. Some are required for a functioning society (respect other people's property and body, etc). Most of the laws we have today go far beyond the essentials.

Duncan,
Exactly! Pay for your own porn, or pay for your own childs porn. Don't steal the money from me to do it, or complain if I want a say in the rules, when you are using my money for your kids to view porn in the library!
That's the problem with tax-funded public libraries. If the person who wants to ogle porn in the library pays their taxes too, how are they using your money to do so?