ACHTUNG! INTERNET PORN IS VERBOTEN!

[albanian]

"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. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I love it when things get misunderstood...

>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]

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]

>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?

 

[ScottS]

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]

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]

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]

Closed by Degenerate Scum.