paramedicmike Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 The parchment paper with the Old Engrish and fancy writing said so. Excuse me? The "r" and "l" keys are nowhere near each other. Care to explain just what you're getting at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HERBIE1 Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 With my concealed pistol license, I just might have a gun in the library...and yes, it IS legal! You are lucky to live in such a place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HERBIE1 Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 If you're referring to pictures and other images of the naked female form as 'porn', then you're on a mission to close or censor 7/11, the local art museum, and any other place that this 'porn' is viewed, sold or otherwise purveyed. 7/11 and other places generally have their porn magazines partially covered, in wrappers, and/or generally behind their counter. Some kid can't just pick up a copy for a quick thrill. As for art museums- are you really equating internet porn to a "David" or other classic nude paintings or sculptures? Come on. Now that you've eliminated the kid's access to the 'evil porn', (outside of subscriptions and 'adult bookstores'), what's next? Are we going to have public book burnings? Has "Catcher in the Rye" been put back on the 'torch list'? Eliminating a kid's access to porn? Hardly. Any kid who is even remotely internet savvy can get as much porn as they want from their phones or lap tops. We were talking about an ADULT surfing porn in a public library. Again- are you really equating classic literature and culture with PORNOGRAPHY? Once you start down this road, you're not only violating the first amendment rights of companies like Playboy, Penthouse and others; you're also now interfering with interstate commerce (which I believe is a federal offense). No, once we start down this road, we are protecting KIDS from being exposed to some pervert, sitting in a public library, getting off on internet porn. Are you really more concerned about the "rights" of John Q Pervert than the "rights" of children? I have no idea for sure, but my guess is that legit adult magazines do not offer free access to their material on the internet. I am talking about all the free stuff out there, and easily accessible to anyone who wants it. Look at some of the 'offensive stuff' that has been deemed 'art' and funded by federal money from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)… I'm thinking the guy in the library is not accessing that stuff, nor is the NEA providing funding for any of the sites he was surfing. Should we start banning works by Édouard Manet, or Picasso simply because of the fact that the nudity involved in their paintings? What about the other 'classics'? Maybe we should start banning access to images like this, based simply on the medium used? Where do you draw the lines on what is 'allowable' and what isn't? I had no idea that wanting to protect children was crossing such a fine line. Furthermore, how is it NOT 'censorship' when you're stifling the 'creative processes of one or more simply because your personal morals are 'offended'? Isn't that what censorship is? Weak. Creative processes? Really? We are talking about internet PORNOGRAPHY, not about great nudes in Greek and Roman history. How arrogant is it to presume that YOUR morals and beliefs are the ONLY ones that are 'just and right' while everyone else's is 'warped and wrong'? Again- I suggest that 'my' morals- at least in terms of thinking potentially exposing kids to pornography is a bad thing- are not exactly a fringe belief. This is not some abstract debate in a university classroom about Constitutional rights and freedoms, this is a real world thing, with very real consequences. If someone gets off on midget porn, seeing barnyard antics, or gawd knows what else- knock yourself out- IN THE PRIVACY OF YOUR OWN HOME, not in public. We limit the sale of porn mags to 18 or even 21 and over. We provide ratings systems for movies that keep kids from seeing explicit movies. We rate TV shows, and most TV's and cable/satellite providers allow us to block "inappropriate content" from kids, but saying no pornography on a public library computer will lead to the collapse of our society? REALLY? What about all the indecent exposure laws we have in this country? Topless beaches are common in many places around the world. Not here. Whether you agree with them or not, this country has standards that say we do not approve of this. It's not WHAT this guy is doing, it's WHERE. You don't have the 'right' to interfere, and your actions COULD find you not only in criminal court (for assaulting the library patron), but you COULD find yourself facing federal charges as well! Look at the federal charges that have been levied against hackers for violation of (I believe) FCC and ICC laws…. I'll take my chances. If some pervert is doing this around my kids, the FCC and ICC will be the least of his worries. If some pervert is sitting in a library, surrounded by kids and checking out porn, do you really think he is exercising his constitutional rights, or is he actually getting a cheap thrill by surfing this porn surrounded by children? Sorry, but with the advent of computers, smart phones, and lap tops, someone who is simply trying to indulge in porn has more than ample opportunity to do it in total privacy. I prefer to err on the side of caution when it comes to kids. If a parent thinks it's perfectly acceptable for their kids to see internet porn, they can buy them an online subscription to Boobs R Us, or something similar. As disgusting as it may seem to most folks, they ARE the parents. We cannot control that, but it seems to me that protecting kids in a public library is a no-brainer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Plain Ruff Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 I don't agree to allow porn in the public library. That's just my opinion I would like to see a show of people here who would be OK with their child walking past a computer and seeing a man screwing a woman or man to man porn or girl on girl porn. Your child could walk past this computer screen and see it. Are you all OK with this? I sure am not but it is a first amendment right for people to view all sorts of things. But I am not really going to let my child wander around in a big public library alone anyway so he's likely not going to see any of what is being discussed here. But seriously, why watch it at the library, are you going to pull out your schlong and whack off in the library? I think not. Privacy filters need to be installed and what should really happen is that the libraries put into place the safeguards that I am sure that all of us would like to see put in place. For those of you who have no problem with this topic, would you have sex with your partner, (wife or husband) in front of your children? If you would have no problem having sex in front of your children then so be it but if you would have a problem with it then why don't you have a problem with it being viewed in public? I think in the end, all that is needed is safeguards to be put in place so kids are not exposed (no pun intended) to porn at the library. That's all I ask to be put in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HERBIE1 Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 I don't agree to allow porn in the public library. That's just my opinion I would like to see a show of people here who would be OK with their child walking past a computer and seeing a man screwing a woman or man to man porn or girl on girl porn. Your child could walk past this computer screen and see it. Are you all OK with this? I sure am not but it is a first amendment right for people to view all sorts of things. But I am not really going to let my child wander around in a big public library alone anyway so he's likely not going to see any of what is being discussed here. But seriously, why watch it at the library, are you going to pull out your schlong and whack off in the library? I think not. Privacy filters need to be installed and what should really happen is that the libraries put into place the safeguards that I am sure that all of us would like to see put in place. For those of you who have no problem with this topic, would you have sex with your partner, (wife or husband) in front of your children? If you would have no problem having sex in front of your children then so be it but if you would have a problem with it then why don't you have a problem with it being viewed in public? I think in the end, all that is needed is safeguards to be put in place so kids are not exposed (no pun intended) to porn at the library. That's all I ask to be put in place. Bravo, Ruff. This whole censorship, rights, and freedoms thing is a non starter in my book. We can refuse children admittance to an NC17 or R rated film, yet banning porn on a public library computer is BAD? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DwayneEMTP Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 So you have issues with a fully federally funded institution being forced to protect the constitution of the united states? I have several friends and family members, and untold others that I was never privileged to meet, that have died in defense of the American Constitution, yet now we should ignore their sacrifice because Herbie says so? Despite the fact that you're unwilling to answer me when I ask you to define what is considered pornographic? I love you Herbie, but that seems terribly simple minded and hypocritical. Do I want my son to walk through the library and see untold sexual acts unfolding on monitors all over the library day after day? No...but not because he would be damaged by seeing such things, but because I would hope that he would/will learn to be more socially appropriate than that. How long has this rule been in effect at these public libraries? How many waves of offended patrons have been forced to flee these libraries, retching at the content that they have overseen on the monitors? So, is this truly a problem? Or is this a bunch of Chicken Little bullshit stirred up by a bored reporter? Do I want Dylan to be offended by such things sometimes? Yeah, I do. That is how he will learn to deal with offensive behavior as well as come to understand that living in a free society sometimes means tolerating things that don't necessarily fit with his/my lifestyle. (I would love nothing better than to blow Phelps head off...but those that speak for me regarding constitutional issues protect him, and I respect that.) If there would need to be SOME kind of ban, I would certainly bad the shallow thinking of those that would neuter the Constitutional right of free speech long before someone that might download porn in the library. Also, as you refuse to define porn, how do you intend to block those images that horrify you in this environment without also blocking educational material on STDs, HIV/AIDS, breast cancer, moral and ethical debate surrounding nudity in art, and an amazing host of vital health related issues? Not everyone has access to a computer at home. And before you tell them to go and read a book I would challenge you to go to your public library and find me a book that shows the latest research on HIV, STDs, or the incidence of autism and the latest thinking on management and a cure...No, not something from 1995, but from 2010 or later. Right? You see where I'm going with this? And the govt, during Clinton's rein, couldn't even decide if a blowjob was a sexual act or not, yet you're going to give the right of what should be seen and what shouldn't to a librarian? I don't get it man.... Good discussion though! Dwayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paramedicmike Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 Yes. Really. You keep comparing private property/businesses with public buildings/organizations. It's not a legitimate comparison and you even admitted this previously with the Starbucks reference. And yes. I will fight for the rights of John Q. Public over the supposed rights of children. I'll do this for several reasons. First and foremost is that if the rights of John Q. Public are not protected today children will never be able to experience those rights tomorrow. Second, they are *rights*. They're not privileges. They're *RIGHTS*. That means they're guaranteed. Third, what rights do children have? According to the courts, not many. So arguing for the rights of children in most cases has no legal standing. Banning any information in a public library is bad. It's tantamount to censorship. It is denying education, entertainment and a general pursuit of happiness to people who are legally entitled to it. I will fight tooth and nail to protect that even if I disagree with the subject matter so long as the subject matter in question is legal. With regards to putting safeguards in place to limit the chance that kids could be exposed to it, I agree and even said as much in an earlier posting. Those safeguards, however, should not include banning access to the information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYCEMS9115 Posted April 28, 2011 Author Share Posted April 28, 2011 Excuse me? The "r" and "l" keys are nowhere near each other. Care to explain just what you're getting at? Sorry, I was at the Library to do a paper. I lost track of time. Actually, I was bored. I was using the Library computer to surf EMTCity and I opened another browser; because its my RIGHT; I went onto some XXX sites. I watched the Kim Kardashian Sex Video; damn she's hot; I was, well I really should say. I reached a climax and I got all discombobulated and I accidentally hit the R key instead of the L key. My bad... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HERBIE1 Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 Yes. Really. You keep comparing private property/businesses with public buildings/organizations. It's not a legitimate comparison and you even admitted this previously with the Starbucks reference. Different context. The Starbucks reference was about someone surfing porn on their lap top. In terms of private property.businesses, unless there is an ID check at the door, ANYONE- man, woman, or child can walk into that business. Either we find it acceptable to place limits/controls/restrictions on things, or we do not. Do the profits of a business trump individual "rights"? And yes. I will fight for the rights of John Q. Public over the supposed rights of children. I'll do this for several reasons. First and foremost is that if the rights of John Q. Public are not protected today children will never be able to experience those rights tomorrow. Second, they are *rights*. They're not privileges. They're *RIGHTS*. That means they're guaranteed. Third, what rights do children have? According to the courts, not many. So arguing for the rights of children in most cases has no legal standing. Sigh. This country is in worse shape than I thought. The rights of our children are to be protected. Period. I seem to recall a former first lady who's mantra was "It takes a village". Does that not apply here? Gawd help me- I am actually quoting Hillary Clinton here. Sorry, but no prudent parent would WANT their child to be exposed to such things, and I do not think it's unreasonable to expect that a public library should be a safe environment. Will they be exposed to things in their everyday lives? Of course, and each time we defend things such as this, our societal standards take yet another hit. We bemoan how the kids grow up too fast, how they are exposed to inappropriate content on TV, in the movies, on billboards, etc. Obviously the internet has opened a whole new can of worms. How do you think these things happened? Someone decided to defend someone's right to be disgusting, inappropriate, immoral, unethical, lewd, or just plain nasty. Each time we acquiesce, society's acceptable standards drop another notch, and the door opens a bit wider. Banning any information in a public library is bad. It's tantamount to censorship. It is denying education, entertainment and a general pursuit of happiness to people who are legally entitled to it. I will fight tooth and nail to protect that even if I disagree with the subject matter so long as the subject matter in question is legal. The information is not IN the library. The library- and the computer- are merely a point of access for that information. You can obtain that information anywhere- as in the privacy of your own home, sitting in your car on your PDA, sitting in the middle of a park in a trench coat, on your lap top... Education, entertainment, and pursuit of happiness? Nobody is denying someone's access to these things. Time and place. It's not the subject matter here, it's the place you are obtaining it, and the children who are exposed to it. In our jobs, we are supposed to be advocates for those who cannot help themselves, and who are the most vulnerable. That includes mandated implied consent when caring for minors. Thus, we make moral and ethical decisions based on some "common" standard of decency and morality. We ASSUME that in their absence, a prudent parent would want us to do everything possible to help their child. What if that included care/treatment that somehow violated their religious, cultural or ethnic beliefs? Do we withhold care for fear of violating the rights of the parents to practice a particular religion? With regards to putting safeguards in place to limit the chance that kids could be exposed to it, I agree and even said as much in an earlier posting. Those safeguards, however, should not include banning access to the information. There is NO rational, logical, educational, moral- yes, I said MORAL- reason for PORNOGRAPHY to be permitted in a public library. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DwayneEMTP Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 (edited) Sorry, I was at the Library to do a paper. I lost track of time. Actually, I was bored. I was using the Library computer to surf EMTCity and I opened another browser; because its my RIGHT; I went onto some XXX sites. I watched the Kim Kardashian Sex Video; damn she's hot; I was, well I really should say. I reached a climax and I got all discombobulated and I accidentally hit the R key instead of the L key. My bad... So what's your point, that you jack off at the library? Are you unable to define and then defend a point? Is that why you keep posting this kind of crap? Hoping that someone else will confuse it will intelligent banter and make your point for you? Do you even have a point, or just like to watch yourself talk? Dwayne Edited to correct a spelling error and make a tiny grammar change. Edited April 28, 2011 by DwayneEMTP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts