Policing Porn Isn't Part of The Job 592
Rick Zeman wrote to mention a Washington Post article about an incident at a Bethesda library. Two uniformed men from a Homeland Security detachment made an announcement stating that pornography was not acceptable viewing at the library. They then questioned a patron's choice of reading material. From the article: "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."
Free news articles (Score:2, Informative)
Google news [google.com]
Good way... (Score:3, Funny)
Also great karma whoring - even though most people know that WaPo doesn't ever require registration.
Re:Free news articles (Score:3, Informative)
Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html [google.com])
A lot of registration-only news sites will let you in as googlebot. After all, they want to be indexed...Oh, and don't put in the [google.com] slashdot autolink bit.
Re:Free news articles (Score:2)
Re:Free news articles (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Free news articles (Score:5, Informative)
Neat! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Neat! (Score:5, Insightful)
So now we have our own versions of the Muslim world's "Morality Police"?
The main problem I have with the GOP is this damn puritanism. This is the 21st century, dammit! If we force our views (actually their views, not mine. I have TB's of pr0n) on others, how are we better than the damn Islamist's?
The GOP is liable to take it up the ass big time in November. Hopefully this will clear out some of the ancient old farts so we can later elect younger pols with more of a Libertarian bent.
But I'm not holding my breath...
Re:Neat! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Neat! (Score:3, Insightful)
There are some people in EVERY community that try to force their views on others. Some Islamic people do it. Some Christian people do it. You get in from Republicans, you get it from Democrats. You get it from straight people, you get it from gay people. You get it from Conservatives, you get it from liberals.
Notice I said "some" not "all".
The problem comes in when people are utterly convinced they're right, and the other side are evil f
Re:Neat! (Score:4, Insightful)
Having sides is not right, and will get us no where.
Re:Neat! (Score:3, Insightful)
And like I said, this isn't a universal thing. I have quite a few gay friends, and none of them act that way at all
Re:Neat! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Neat! (Score:5, Insightful)
Most christians or muslism are not that hardline, but seems that the hardliners do have way too much media publicity.
Re:Neat! (Score:3, Interesting)
If moderate Christians would stand up and tell Jerry Falwell to shove his bigotted ideas up his ass, Christians wouldn't have such an increasingly bad reputation. If moderate Muslims would *actively* work against the extremist mullahs (I'm not just talking about issuing press statements), then Muslims wouldn't have such an increasingly bad reputation.
The same can be said for Republicans, Democrats, and Cthulus -- the uneducated masses of voters that gi
Re:Neat! (Score:5, Funny)
How can you be a devotee of Cthulhu and not be an extremist? Seems like the two go hand-in-tentacle...
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
Re:Neat! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Seperation of church and state?" Whatever. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me refer you to the 14th Amendment incorporation doctrine (and n.b. that state constitutions all AFAIK have guarantees that are the same or even stronger than this).
It seperates the Government from the Church, not the church from the Government.
No, it does both. If the government cannot engage in dealings of a religious capacity it can't take orders from a religion either. To do so would be to have one of those religions be officially on top, and then you're back doing what even you agree isn't permissible.
So, the church can influence the Federal Government quite a bit. And they can practicaly run State Governments if it is allowed in that state's constitution.
Let me remind you of the republican clause of the Constitution as well.
If you don't like that, move to a different state. That is the great thing about this country we live in.
No, the great thing about this country is that you can be so wrong that I wouldn't trust you if you said that the sun rises in the east, and yet we're secure enough, knowing that you'll always be marginalized as a nut, that we don't have to lock you away or shoot you or otherwise get our hands dirty in order to keep you from being dangerous to others. It's great.
Re:"Seperation of church and state?" Whatever. (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, you need to read Marsh v. Chambers and the dissent. Basically, the Court made an exception for that situation, and that situation a
Re:"Seperation of church and state?" Whatever. (Score:5, Informative)
Jefferson wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which is not only the direct model for the religious clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution, it is the prototype of all modern religious liberty guarantees -- the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the constitutions of countless other nations, etc. Jefferson is the single most important thinker and writer in the past 500 years on the topic of religion and government. The phrase "separation of church and state" is the phrase he used to describe the essence of his policy, and it is the phrase we continue to use to describe that same policy.
It only prohibits the Federal Government from abridging the freedom of speech. Local state authorites are not Congress. It only prohibits Congress
The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868. You really need to pick up a few books on the Constitution and US history, your understanding of both is lacking, and it affects your understanding of your right as a citizen and human being.
Re:"Seperation of church and state?" Whatever. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, but apparently not you. You have to read the WHOLE thing, and that includes the various AMENDMENTS that CHANGE the meaning and application of various other parts of the Constitution. In particular the 14th Amednment means that the states and local governments are equally prohibited from violating the constitutional rights of citizens.
And really it was a bug or flaw in the Constitution prior to the 14th Amendment. That's why we ammend the Constitution - to fix bugs and flaws. It is an absolute ABOMINATION for you to suggest that only the Federal government should be prohibited from violoating our rights. It is an absolute ABOMINATION for you to suggest that state and local governments SHOULD be allowed to VIOLATE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
Go right ahead.... I want to hear you argue that state and local police government SHOULD be able to engage in warrantless searchs and seisures, argue that the 4th Amendment should only apply to Federal police. I want to hear you argue that state and local government SHOULD be able violate and deny our right to Religious Freedom.
This pharase "Seperation of church and state" is a bogus idea. It came from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to his friend while he was in France.
You are correct that the precise phrase "Seperation of church and state" is lifted from a Jefferson letter. Jefferson is reknown for his skill with words and coming up with exactly the right short beautiful phrase to represent a rich idea.
However the idea originates from Jesus Christ himself. Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's, render unto God that which is God. Jeasus himself addressed the difference between the Kingdom of Man and the Kingdom of God.
In a United States context, the idea of separation of church and state appears to have first taken root with Roger Williams, co-founder of Rhode Island in the 1600's. The idea then grew and was adouped as a founding principle by the Founding Fathers. In fact James Madison wrote extensively on the subject. You know, James Madison Founding Father. James Madison President of the United States. James Madison Father of the Constitution. James Madison Father of the Bill of Rights. James Madison Author of the First Amendment.
He wrote estensively on the subject of separation of church and state, and what it meant, and what constituted a violation of the First Amendment in relation to speration of chursh and state.
Madison referred to it many times, using phrases such as "perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters" and the "separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States".
Of course Madison's phrase "separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters" is far less catchy than Jefferson's "Separation of Church and State". We use Jefferson's phrase for the idea simply because he was such a skilled wordsmith.
The idea of Separation of Church and State was established as a Founding Principle of this nation by both the "rationalists" such as Jefferson and Madison who were wary of the currupting influence of religion upon government (and often wrote of that concern), AND by the evangelical Founding Fathers of various religious branches as well. Many religious groups had explicitly come to the States to flee the effects of religious influence upon government at home. They were excruciatingly aware of the effect of religion upon government and that it inherently produced oppression of minority religions. They delivberately di NOT establish a "Christian" government, because they well knew that that could and would inherently mean one particular sect of Christianity elevated by government above all other sects, and that that inherently constituted a violation against the Right to Religious Freedom and equality under the law of all other sects.
The author of the First Amendment was James Madison. He wrote extensively on the separ
Re:Neat! (Score:5, Insightful)
These situations will not improve until people learn to count higher than two.
Re:Neat! (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the problems with plurality voting are described by game theory, not arithmetic. Everybody knows how to count higher than two; not so many people know the differences between instant runoff, Condorcet, and approval voting.
What's worse: the biggest problem with democracy in America today is apathy, not ignorance. People get furious at anyone who voted for "the other guy"; yet for some reason they take it easy on the more numerous group who couldn't be bothered to vote at all.
Re:Neat! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Neat! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Neat! (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh? You're registered with a political party whose representatives have lied, spied on their own citizens, started bloody wars under false pretenses, legalized convictions without a fair trial, wantonly censor free speech and choice, endorse monopolies, and justify political decisions based on religious beliefs.
If this is the lesser of two evils, I can only assume that the only other alternative was sending your campaign contribution to the Legions o
Re:Neat! (Score:3, Interesting)
The american mullahs are in power.
Consider how many people voted
Re:Neat! (Score:5, Informative)
There is more of this too....you know those quaint little stickers on CDs? Tipper Gore's (Al's squeeze), was leading the charge on that back in the day.
This isn't a "one side is doing it and not the other" thing.
Re:Neat! (Score:5, Insightful)
I was going to say something about how easy and pointless it is to cherry-pick transgressions from any party, but you know what? It doesn't matter.
I don't fucking care who's encouraging the brownshirt activity; it just has to stop.
Re:Neat! (Score:3, Informative)
The FCC is directed by five Commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for 5-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The President designates one of the Commissioners to serve as Chairperson. Only three Commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them can have a financial interest in any Commission-related business.
So, it is a requirement that there be Democrats on the commission.
Re:So what? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What's Been Bothering Me... (Score:3, Funny)
If she had shown Justin Timberlake's nipple, though... now that would definitely have been obscene.
Re:Neat! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Neat! (Score:3, Insightful)
Because various Libertarian nuts on Slashdot make it so bloody clear that a society under Libertarian rule has only one rule: "every man for himself, and if you can't swim, you deserve to drown". Most of us are sane enough to realize that under the law of the jungle, we are gazelles, not lions. And some of us have no desire to promote such laws even if we were the predator
Ha. (Score:4, Interesting)
Big Brother's Little Helper? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Big Brother's Little Helper? (Score:3, Funny)
It makes perfect sense to me. Haven't you hard of the latest threat? PMD - Pornography of Mass Destruction. Unleash some dirty porn in a heavily populated area, and they're as good as gone.
Re:Ha. (Score:2)
Re:Ha. (Score:3, Insightful)
By random shoulder surfing???
Look, even if you support this Big Brotherism, how in hell do you think looking over the shoulder of patrons is going to find "the terrorist" looking at a bomb-making page?
It's not efficient, there aren't enough Homeland Security officers to look over every shoulder, so unless you think they can just shadow brown people in turbans -- and Tim McVeigh was neither brown nor a turban wearer
Re:Ha. (Score:3, Insightful)
Only 3000?! What if one day YOU are a victim? Then even if it was only 1, only you, it wouldn't be a small deal for you.
Nuclear (including dirty bombs), Chemical, and Biological weapons can kill millions.
This crap takes the freedom of 300 million Americans at a single blow.
Give us a break. It was a local Ho
Re:Ha. (Score:3, Insightful)
Juxtapose 3000 with 3 million. That's 3 orders of magnitude of difference. Any pain and suffering, it doesn't even have to be death, can be devasting if it happens to you. Lose your job, break up from a long relationship, etc. Or comparing deaths, how about cancer or other illness related or even car accidents. That doesn't mean driving should be illegal and every has to take mass
Re:Ha. (Score:3, Informative)
I'll take that chance. Better to die free than live in fear of a police state.
Nuclear (including dirty bombs), Chemical, and Biological weapons can kill millions.
Well the first one *might* be able to. Chemical weapons? Not bloody likely. Biological weapons have never proven to be capable in a widespread area, unless you count the spread of smallpox and even that required continual exposure
Libraries are perfect for porn (Score:5, Insightful)
Two uniformed men... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sweet god, people, how far does this farce have to run before you realise that the "threat" that Homeland Security was set-up to combat is *you*?
Re:Two uniformed men... (Score:5, Insightful)
These were county officials, not US Gov't (Score:5, Informative)
Stupid as these two guys were this was not related to the Patriot Act, it wasn't related to Bush, it wasn't related to the GOP, it wasn't related to Ashcroft, Alito, Cheney, Halliburton, Microsoft, SCO, or Rush Limbaugh.
Please becareful navigating posts in this story as the knee jerks could cause serious damage.
Re:These were county officials, not US Gov't (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the Bush administritation, they just have to create the climate . They certainly won't give every orders. Do you really think Hitler did everything all by himself ? There was a lot of local initiative like this one in Germany in the 1930.
And guess what... The Bush administration did create the climate for such things to happen. So yes it's related to Bush, Ashcroft and all the others.
Re:These were county officials, not US Gov't (Score:3, Insightful)
From the article
Re:These were county officials, not US Gov't (Score:3, Insightful)
If these rent-a-cops aren't given rights by the Patriot Act, what purpose do they serve? Clearly this is out of line, and a DIRECT result of the GWB "Climate."
Re:These were county officials, not US Gov't (Score:5, Insightful)
See, here's the problem. We have limitations on the power of government for a reason. It's because government badly abuses it when it gets the opportunity -- years of the FBI under Hoover [wikipedia.org] taught us that lesson very well.
Now, lots of people -- possibly even well-meaning people -- in a position to receive increased powers are all for those increased powers. After all, *they* know that they are not going to abuse those powers. Surely, if someone else or someone later on abuses those powers, they'll be smacked down.
The problem is that this logic also justifies authority having unlimited, absolute power.
We already had to go through this very painfully before.
From WP's CIA article [wikipedia.org]:
DCI James R. Schlesinger had commissioned a series of reports on past CIA wrongdoing. These reports, known euphemistically as "the Family Jewels", were kept close to the Agency's chest until an article by Seymour Hersh in the New York Times broke the news that the CIA had been involved in the assassination of foreign leaders and kept files on some seven thousand American citizens involved in the peace movement (Operation CHAOS). Congress investigated the CIA in the Senate through the Church committee, named after Chairman Frank Church (D-Idaho) and in the House through the Pike committee, named after Chairman Otis Pike (D-N.Y.); and these investigations led to further embarrassing disclosures. Around the Christmas of 1974/5, another blow was struck by Congress when they blocked covert intervention in Angola.
The CIA was subsequently prohibited from assassinating foreign leaders. Further, the prohibition against domestic spying, which had always been prohibited by the CIA charter, was again to be enforced, with the FBI having sole responsibility for domestic investigation of US citizens.
The FBI had plenty of its own dirty laundry turned up by the Church Committee [wikipedia.org].
Why go through all this again? We *know* that if you grant unnecessary powers and simply trust that they will not be abused, they *will* be abused. Why on earth did we allow PATRIOT through?
Re:Two uniformed men... (Score:2, Insightful)
This was two government agents taking it upon themselves to dictate what is and isn't acceptable.
There's a huge difference between private citizens and people employed by the government to enforce the law.
Re:Two uniformed men... (Score:2)
Thus one should preferably know what the statures are and what part of them one is supposed to be enforcing.
Now they're moving into the open... (Score:5, Insightful)
Various conservative factions first gained power at the local government level and leveraged that power to take control nationally. Between RICO and PATRIOT and executive orders authorizing surveillance, the federal government certainly has the capability of being just as interfering as these Montgomery County officials.
I'm starting to feel like that corny old poem about first they came for the Jews, then the homosexuals and I never spoke up. In the case of the U.S. it's already progressing from the terrorists to Muslims in general, non-violent political agitators, and now pornography viewers.
When will the "small-government" conservatives put their votes where there brains are? A "wasted" vote for the libertarian party would demonstrate commitment to their principles and send the major parties a message.
Re:Now they're moving into the open... (Score:2)
Re:Now they're moving into the open... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. They thought they were doing the correct thing. This is after their training. After getting approved for acting as a government official. After talking to another trained person (each other). (And MAYBE after talking to other trained persons, including their supervisor.)
2. The librarian, who knows what legal knowlege he had, had to talk to them in private. How did it even get to this point? Even then, they had to call in a police officer.
3. If we hadn't heard of this, would they have been reassigned? Why aren't they let go? Its clear they didn't get their training. Will they ever be in the field again in the future? Are they in a position to use their judgement again, even behind the desk (where they could potentially do even greater damage)?
I don't TRUST the police/law enforment, just because they have a badge and a nice uniform because in the end they are just human, like anyone without a badge and nice uniform. I give them a certain amount of respect, but I give everyone the same amount of respect.
(Police/law enforement don't trust their own either, ask them if they have locks on their lockers in the police station.)
Re:Now they're moving into the open... (Score:5, Informative)
Is this what you meant? Please note the first three lines (usually omitted in the USA), and that there is no mention of homosexuals. Political correctness is one thing; rewriting history and literature is another.
Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Kommunist.
Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.
Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.
Als sie die Juden holten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Jude.
Als sie mich holten, gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte.
- Martin Niemöller, Der Weg ins Freie, (F.M. Hellbach, Stuttgart, 1946)
When the Nazis arrested the Communists, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Communist.
When they locked up the Social Democrats, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Social Democrat.
When they arrested the trade unionists, I said nothing; after all, I was not a trade unionist.
When they arrested the Jews, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Jew.
When they arrested me, there was no longer anyone who could protest.
- translated by Bob Berkovitz (rbbrook@worldnet.att.net).
Re:Now they're moving into the open... (Score:3, Informative)
Jews were just the largest and wealthiest group targetted.
Re:Now they're moving into the open... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Now they're moving into the open... (Score:3, Informative)
according to the administration, yes it is [washingtonpost.com]
Hypocrisy (Score:2, Insightful)
That idea is not incompatible with the view that the federal government has no place policing this. It's not hypocritical to say that something is bad while also thinking the government shouldn't police it.
But please, people, a $50 computer and a $10-a-month dial-up connection will get you all the porn you want at your house. Stop making this an issue.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly my point. If I'm looking at a nude piece of art and some tooth-fairy worshipping zealot thinks its gross, I shouldn't be stopped. They have a choice not to look over your shoulder.
And if you are worried about the children, guess what? They got here through SEX!! Yes, a penis actually entered a vagina and sperm was injected! There might have even been some oral sex to get the whole thing started!!
How about not worrying about the kids being parented by the government and start parenting them yourself.
It's Not Our Definition, Wiseguy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:5, Funny)
Great. Well, as of last night, Better Homes and Gardens and the American Machinist's Handbook are both porn.
And stop looking at me like that.
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:4, Insightful)
The issue is not pornography, nor whether viewing it in a library is acceptable. The issue is whether DHS is authorized and trained to police it. Are pictures of breasts pornography? What if you have breast cancer and are learning about the disease? What if you're doing a report on mammalian reproduction and child rearing? What if you're doing a report on the state of obscenity on the Internet?
Not only is DHS not qualified to decide, no gov't official is. That's what the whole freedom of expression thing is about. If you are over 18, the US gov't is not granted the right to choose what you read or see except where the material in question is illegal for non-obscenity reasons, such as child porn (consent/abuse), top secret documents (homeland security), stolen goods (copyright infringement), etc. Libraries are the place where people who would otherwise be unable to afford media are granted the opportunity to learn - the raison d'etre of libraries is unfettered access to information.
People shouldn't look at porn in public libraries -- at least, not where there's a significant chance of it disturbing other patrons, including children.
Libraries provide privacy screens, on request of either the viewer of the questionable material or of other people in the Internet area of the library.
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah; it's just that at places by my library there are sometimes people looking at porn on the middle-of-the-lobby computers. I'm not sure if we offer privacy screens.
"Stop making this an issue" - what does that mean? Stop exercising your civil liberties because it is inconvenient?
There's this attitude here that if something is technically a civil liberty, we can't criticize or discourage people f
Not only porn (Score:5, Interesting)
A federal employee gets hassled by Homeland Security for antiwar stickers on his car. Is it a mistake, a new rule, or the part of a trend of the First Amendment being bullied out of existence? Read the transcript, read the rules and decide for yourself
Re:Not only porn (Score:5, Interesting)
That sort of thing has no place in this country! As a private citizen I have a right to disagree with the anti-war people and I can take it up with them, but the Government had better back the fsck off!
I have an idea that will save $3.6M/year... (Score:5, Funny)
I have an idea that will save $3.6M/year...can you guess what it is?
Wow.. (Score:2)
Re:Wow.. (Score:3, Informative)
After 9/11, pretty much every state got some homeland security/anti-terror stuff going (my freshly-retired aunt worked for the state I grew up in, and I think wound up with ties to their anti-terror folks, since she dealt with things terrorists like, such as laundered money), and funding for "homeland security" has been doled out down to the lowest levels of government (where it's been spent on some
Cheers! (Score:5, Insightful)
As the article mentions, the library system in that county includes privacy screens so that people can view whatever they want without disturbing anyone else. A very reasonable alternative to blocking sites based on content.
But is it just the people? (Score:2)
Is the real problem the law, homeland security or just the people in the position?
I think the problem here is that you have individuals who went outside the boundry of what they are supposed to do. Yes, it is wrong. However, do you know blame the law or the agency they work for? Isn't it just a problem with these knuckleheads? They were doing something they were supposed to be doing. I think it is more of a people problem, rather than a problem with the law. If they were doing what they
Hand them your ACLU Card (Score:3, Interesting)
Most MD police are yocals and bullies, who will try to bully or dick you around if you let. I've found that handing them my ACLU card deters them. Even better was I knew some of these commanders, and there was nothing funnier than watching an officer explain to division/area commander, why he trying to get the county sued.
You really think this is DHS policy? NO! (Score:4, Insightful)
This surprises me... (Score:4, Interesting)
I admit I don't know too much about these Homeland Security officers but I somehow imagined they would outrank the police. From the article it sounds like they are no more powerful than your run of the mill mall security guard - at least those guys are given flashlights.
Terrorist have won (Score:5, Insightful)
They haven't killed any more people, but they've killed what makes America, America. Our freedom.
.
Re:Terrorist have won (Score:5, Insightful)
Petty Tyranny (Score:3, Interesting)
No tyranny is so irksome as petty tyranny: the officious demands of policemen, government clerks, and electromechanical gadgets. - Edward Abbey
Amazing the effect any authority has on small minds. Invariably, it leads to attempt to usurp new power and tyranny. It would have been better if the librarian would have immediately asked the Homeland Security people to go outside and state that such declarations - even from police officers - was illegal and inappropriate.
Interesting that they were merely reassigned, rather than fired for their stupidity.
Bin Laden would approve. (Score:5, Insightful)
Defending American values? Well, sheesh. Isn't more than half of the world's porn made in America? Playboy, anybody?
Sounds to me like Bush's stiffs are more interested in re-defining American values rather than in defending the existing ones. Not like "American Values," which seem to include destroying budding democracies and economies around the world by funding evil men like Saddam, and maintaining one of the lowest standards of living in the world's industrialized nations, the shortest number of holidays, largest number of work hours, largest percentage of starving, homeless and illiterate. . . Golly! Let's defend that!
But with some spiffy re-defining and defending of New American Values, why in 50 years, (if there's still a U.S. around in 50 years when the radioactive dust settles and Bush's babies crawl from their luxurious underground retreats), Americans may well be making the best automobiles, watches and repressed sexuality fetish porn in the world, and be putting all their verbs at the end of the sentence where they damned well belong!
Anyway, what exactly does stamping out porn have to do with stopping 'terrorists' blowing up buildings? Heck, Islamic Extremist groups don't like porn either. They say it's a moral corruption. So wouldn't they approve of this latest move by Bush's stiffs?
It's all nuts. None of it makes sense except when viewed through the spyglass of fascism.
I'm sure people laughed at the brownshirts too. Don't give them an inch.
-FL
Re:Bin Laden would approve. (Score:3, Insightful)
Only once.
Librarians are sexy (Score:5, Funny)
Inside that thick dull glasses, boring 2 piece dress, layaway cheap pump shoes and 9 dollar hair cut, there is some really sexy woman just waiting to explode. mmm... daddy like... daddy like...
This is an example of why ... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is an example of why privacy has to be preserved and ideas like cameras in the home [slashdot.org] cannot be accepted. They ask "If you've done nothing wrong, why worry about cameras monitoring your every activity?" ... to which this case is the perfect example of exactly why cameras should never be forced into any private place, and not even in some public ones.
Obligatory Tom Lehrer Quotation (Score:3, Interesting)
Smut!
Give me smut and nothing but!
A dirty novel I can't shut,
If it's uncut,
and unsubt- le.
I've never quibbled
If it was ribald,
I would devour where others merely nibbled.
As the judge remarked the day that he
acquitted my Aunt Hortense,
"To be smut
It must be ut-
Terly without redeeming social importance."
Por-
Nographic pictures I adore.
Indecent magazines galore,
I like them more
If they're hard core.
(Bring on the obscene movies, murals, postcards, neckties,
samplers, stained-glass windows, tattoos, anything!
More, more, I'm still not satisfied!)
Stories of tortures
Used by debauchers,
Lurid, licentious, and vile,
Make me smile.
Novels that pander
To my taste for candor
Give me a pleasure sublime.
(Let's face it, I love slime.)
All books can be indecent books
Though recent books are bolder,
For filth (I'm glad to say) is in
the mind of the beholder.
When correctly viewed,
Everything is lewd.
(I could tell you things about Peter Pan,
And the Wizard of Oz, there's a dirty old man!)
I thrill
To any book like Fanny Hill,
And I suppose I always will,
If it is swill
And really fil
thy.
Who needs a hobby like tennis or philately?
I've got a hobby: rereading Lady Chatterley.
But now they're trying to take it all
away from us unless
We take a stand, and hand in hand
we fight for freedom of the press.
In other words,
Smut! (I love it)
Ah, the adventures of a slut.
Oh, I'm a market they can't glut,
I don't know what
Compares with smut.
Hip hip hooray!
Let's hear it for the Supreme Court!
Don't let them take it away!
Built-In Godwin (Score:3, Insightful)
If we don't take a stand now, we'll be living in a real Honest-to-God police state 10 years from now. (I know, some will say we already are.)
Hope they got a boot right up their right-wing ass, and a quick face-skid along the asphalt.
Re:Built-In Godwin (Score:3, Insightful)
The role of the Gestapo was to investigate and combat "all tendencies dangerous to the State." It had the authority to investigate treason, espionage and sabotage cases, and cases of criminal attacks on the Nazi Party and on Germany.
The law had been changed in such a way that the Gestapo's actions were not subject to judicial review. Nazi jurist Dr. Werner Best stated, "As long as the [Gestapo]
In Spotsylvania County the Police... (Score:3, Interesting)
See Washington Post article [washingtonpost.com] to read about the Spotsylvania police "beat".
Yay for librarians (Score:5, Interesting)
The American Library Association [ala.org], the largest library association in the world, takes a particularly strong stand on civil liberties, intellectual freedom and privacy [ala.org], and those who really want to show they care can even order themselves an 'Radical Militant Librarian' [ala.org] badge. Hell, kinda makes me wish I was a librarian
Finally, on the general subject of librarian appreciation, his seems like a good place to link to Unshelved [overduemedia.com], a great webcomic about life inside a library.
Too much time on their hands (Score:4, Interesting)
I voting against every Republican incumbent on the ballot this fall. Maybe the only message we can send is "throw the bums out" but if I have anything to do with it, they'll damn sure get that message.
Re:Porn @ the Library (Score:2, Informative)
Now adults technically have a right to look at pr0n over at the Library, which baffles me. I am a big advocate of getting recessed monitor desks. They're the perfect solution. Patrons can look at whatever they want to on the terminals, other patrons and staff can't. Unfortunately, they run
Re:Porn @ the Library (Score:5, Insightful)
But it's OK when the rights you enjoy come out of others pockets? You, sir, or madam, frighten me.
Virtually all of the rights we enjoy are, in one way or another, out of the public's pockets. We pay for a military, and (supposedly) law enforcement to, among other things, defend those rights.
Democracy and Freedom are not easy, nor for the faint of heart. These concepts demand that you value those concepts to the extent that the guy next door, whose opinions and tastes and religion you absolutely despise, is worth your defending his rights. This may include his right to condemn your favorite candidate, his right to burn the flag we love in protest, and his right to have access to materials in a public media forum that you don't agree with.
I promise you, there are church ladies out there who are angry that they have to pay for your right to look at 14th-century Italian painters at your library - because there might be pictures of naked chubby girls in there. They resent having to pay for your right to view this trash. Ridiculous? How, exactly, are you any different?
Because, believe me - Your neighbor that you despise may not agree with what you have to say, believe, or have access to in your library either. The very essence of the core of our government, that we all pay lip service to, but let slip away when it gets tough, is the concept of inalienable rights. I can't take your rights - and you can't take mine. And we each have to pay a little for that priviledge.
Re:I'm disgusted... (Score:3, Insightful)
Two officers did something that stepped over their job description. The situation was handled by superiors. I know it is vogue on Slashdot to "rail against the man", but "the man" dealt with the situation.
So now, we can get back to our God given right to wack off in public.
Re:No porn in the libraries please. (Score:5, Informative)
OK. Except... Homeland Security isn't the police force, and for good reason. Leaving aside the practical impact of mission dilution, their objective is much different. It's the same reason we have the Posse Commitatus Act -- to keep national security assets out of daily life. Nations that don't respect that often end up having the army controlling daily life.
I am not a tin-foil hat guy and I recognize that we in the States are blessed with a highly professional military that takes seriously the principle of civilian control. Here's the rub, though: They do so because of the institutional separation, the incorporated distrust if you will. Paradoxically, we can trust our military precisely because we don't. Dragging DHS into obscenity policing is a step toward a disaster that makes street-variety terrorism pale in comparison.
Re:No porn in the libraries please. (Score:4, Interesting)
What's next - taking the art history books off the shelves because some pervert might have a wank while looking at those paintings of luscious Rubenesque beauties? (oooh...drool...) Removing anthropology books because someone might consider photos of naked villagers to be child pornography?
No, I suspect the problem isn't so much what people are able to view as the lack of respect or consideration some of them have for other library occupants - including the young and the cleaners. How, without prying unduly into a particular library user's privacy, are you to know whether they're surfing porn for a quick thrill or as research into the seedier side of e-commerce? For that matter, how can you tell whether they're looking at "terr-uh-rist" or hate group sites because they're terrorists or neo-nazis or concerned citizens wanting to know more about the groups they've been told are evil? You can't - but the user of the library machines can respect the sensibilities of other users by making use of the privacy screens. Hell, if I was using a computer in a public library and privacy screens were available I'd request one on principle - not because I'd be surfing porn, but because it might make someone else feel comfortable asking for one and expanding their horizons and their minds.
Re:No porn in the libraries please. (Score:3, Insightful)
Further, calling anyone who views porn a "pervert" is misinformed and inflammatory. Webster defines perversion as "any ab
Re:No porn in the libraries please. (Score:3, Insightful)
Your attitude is what makes the Patriot Act so dangerous. The same people who tell us that its only applicable to "terrorists" in one sentence will tell us that law enforcement should be able to use what ever tools are available to fight "crime" in the next sentence.
I'm not so sure about Porn in the Libraries, but it isnt up to two crackers with official l
Re:No porn in the libraries please. (Score:5, Funny)
I agree! And thanks to your enlightened insight, I now also realize that books are even cheaper. If people want to read "Uncle Tom's Cabin", "Lolita", ot the most insidious thing ever wriiten by modern man - "The US Constitution" - they should buy their own copy of it and jerk off to them in their own home!
"I object to the public financing the vehicle for perverts to get a FREE thrill at taxpayers expense. These sickos go wank off in the library then leave the mess behind for someone else. BS to that. That's just flat out wrong."
Again, you nailed it! It is part of the vast liberal conspiracy that they didn't title the article: "Library Patron Masturbates in the Middle of the Library
"And doing it where other people passing by, women and children for instance, that's very, very wrong. There has been a trend of people driving around with porn running on LCD's in their SUV's with the intention of other drivers seeing their porn shows. KIDS are seeing this stuff too.. The police in some cities are pulling these people over and ticketing them but I think they should be arrested, same as a flasher would be."
This reminds me of the last time I was sitting at the library, when I almost got hit by a passing SUV. It was scary, but what was worse is that the driver was a known supporter of the "Bill of Rights"! Even worse, if he had been playing porno on a DVD player, I would have had no choice but to stare into his car, and then by the end of the day I would be morphed into a rapist!
"You want porn? Do it at home behind closed doors but don't do it on the taxpayers tab."
You nailed another one! Did you see the study out in The New England Journal of Fascists that proves as a scientific fact that porn watchers don't pay taxes!
"As for DHS intervening, good for them. They are law enforcement officers are they not? I'm sick of this "hey, it's not MY job" attitude everyone has now. A cop is a cop is a cop. Or should be."
Really. I mean it's not like law is a complicated field. In the end it comes down to a simple formula. Screw the wall of books it takes to describe laws and the funky latin wording. After all, in the end doesn't it all come down to this simple truism: "If the cop doesn't like what your doing, your wrong
"And since the porn in the library problem isn't being handled I think they should simply remove the computers from the library. Let people go buy their own, they're cheap now."
Again, you have enlightened me. If the [substitute content I don't like here] in the library problem isn't being handled, we should just make libraries themselves illegal and close them down.
"-- Fight EVIL (tm) - Boycott Google - Boycott Micro$oft"
Yes, I agree about boycott on Google also. Until they block access to the things I don't think others should see, they are evil! But why Micros0ft? They have shown a strong track record of making decisions for others (the customer) already . They are all for restricting our access (DRM) and helping the police get around that nasty "right to privacy" issue in whatever manner is profitable for them. You leave my buddy Bill alone!
This message has been brought to you by the coalition to protect the rights of morons to be morons
uh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No porn in the libraries please. (Score:4, Insightful)
Let people do their porn viewing in the privacy of their own home and foot the bill themselves.
I object to the public financing the vehicle for perverts to get a FREE thrill at taxpayers expense. These sickos go wank off in the library then leave the mess behind for someone else. BS to that. That's just flat out wrong.
Does it actually cost more money for someone to go to the library and surf for porn than it does to find a farmers almanac? No? Then your point is moot. While lately I feel deep shame for being an American there are some things that make me feel some pride... and free public libraries are it starting circa 1731 by Ben Franklin and company IIRC. The free exchange of information paramont to American culture and one of the keystones to the foundation of the USA. They are open to all whether one's interest is theology, science, pop culture, or the art of macrame coat hangers. This is what I, as a taxpayer, pay for. While I would prefer not sharing a seat next to someone looking up cumshots... this is the job of the librarian to deal with such matters. For any goverment agency to take it upon them selves to police them is a stain on the very soul of the founding fathers, and is simply unamerican.
Re:Do something about it (Score:3, Interesting)
Why is there any reason to believe that the Libertarian candidates, having said what they needed to get elected, won't also immediately go back on their promises?