Can't Watch Porn at Work or Homr. When Can I? At the NYC Public Library...

[NYCEMS9115]

No need to apologize for common sense and/or knowing the difference between right and/or wrong. You need to apologize for littering the thread with this whiney, self rightous bullshit.

If you have a point, make it. If you can't then save us all the "Oh my heart hurts that all can't be as divine as me...." shit.

So far the only difference between some jerkoff masturbating at the library and your posts in this thread is that your verbal cum ends up spraying us all...but still, is equally offensive.

Dwayne

Okay. Hey kettle. Your black. If that's the case; are you not doing the same? It's offensive? Profanity and insults are not offensive? Sorry no research for this reply; no quotes. Your statement you made; are you upset? This outlet is suppose to be good. We can let out our frustrations here but don't take this to heart.

[Lone Star]

I seriously hope you are not suggesting this behavior is something I condone or engage in. I'm not liking the tone or insinuation in that last passage.

I neither insinuated nor implied anything. You're so anxious to return to the 'value system' of the 1950's, so let's look at that 'value system' and all its dirty little nuances. After all, you cannot advocate the return of those values without fully understanding ALL of the 'values' that you're embracing.

Read the definition of pornography. The term never existed before the mid 1800's, and It certainly does not apply to classical art. We have no way of knowing the intent of the artists who made those nude paintings and sculptors, nor do we really know how their work was perceived by their peers.

So it has to be deemed ‘disgusting’ through ‘peer review’? Do you think Larry Flynt (Publisher of Hustler Magazine) looks at Playboy and tells everyone that Hugh Hefner has crossed the line of ‘good taste’? Do you think Renoir, Monet, Van Gogh, et al looked at some woman and thought to himself, “I want to capture her beauty to show future generations!”; or do you think he might have been using his skill as an artist to get some woman naked?

The definition of militia was one of the main legal arguments about whether or not gun bans violated the 2nd amendment. The issue certainly did gain traction with the anti-gun left, which actually proves my previous point. Do you really think the views expressed by the celebrities you mentioned are representative of most Americans, or those of a vocal minority?

Regardless. Did that deter the anti-gun crowd, or are they still making the same arguments? Did they simply accept the USSC ruling?

Actually, the legal argument involving the definition of militia was used to SUPPORT gun bans, not to see if they violated the second amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the posession of firearms is an individual right, not one exclusively held by militias. As far as the views expressed by the listed celebrities and those not listed seem to have resonating effects with a good portion of Americans, otherwise the ‘Million Mom March’ wouldn’t have been as successful as it was.

No, they have NOT been detered. They’re still making the same arguments.

Call me narrow minded, a prude, paranoid- a right wing lunatic, a throwback- whatever label you wish. Guess what? I still believe there is NO REASON why we should allow pornography in a public library where children are present. None.

Unfortunately, the constitution of the United States and the opinion of the United States Supreme Court states that while you feel your beliefs are valid, they however do not have the support of the legal system.

[HERBIE1]

I neither insinuated nor implied anything. You're so anxious to return to the 'value system' of the 1950's, so let's look at that 'value system' and all its dirty little nuances. After all, you cannot advocate the return of those values without fully understanding ALL of the 'values' that you're embracing.

This is your question: Since you're so keen on those particular social values, and that way of life; let me ask you this in all seriousness….if your wife/girlfriend/significant other gets a little bit 'mouthy', do you crack them in the teeth to show them the 'errors of their ways'? If not, then please explain why not; after all, it was ACCEPTABLE 'back then'…..

How should I take a statement such as this? It's a direct question, asked in "all seriousness."

So it's all or nothing? Jim Crowe, no women's rights- there was nothing good about society, and it's all lumped together? I think you know better than that. Solid work ethic? Manners? Common courtesy? Decorum? Standards of behavior? Appropriate public conduct? I'm anxious to return to a time when it was OK to label aberrant behavior as such, when God or religion were not four letter words, when teachers were tasked with teaching instead of being surrogate parents, when a parent was responsible for raising their kids, not the government, a village, or the taxpayers.

So it has to be deemed 'disgusting' through 'peer review'? Do you think Larry Flynt (Publisher of Hustler Magazine) looks at Playboy and tells everyone that Hugh Hefner has crossed the line of 'good taste'? Do you think Renoir, Monet, Van Gogh, et al looked at some woman and thought to himself, "I want to capture her beauty to show future generations!"; or do you think he might have been using his skill as an artist to get some woman naked?

Actually, the legal argument involving the definition of militia was used to SUPPORT gun bans, not to see if they violated the second amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the posession of firearms is an individual right, not one exclusively held by militias. As far as the views expressed by the listed celebrities and those not listed seem to have resonating effects with a good portion of Americans, otherwise the 'Million Mom March' wouldn't have been as successful as it was.

No, they have NOT been detered. They're still making the same arguments.

Unfortunately, the constitution of the United States and the opinion of the United States Supreme Court states that while you feel your beliefs are valid, they however do not have the support of the legal system.

Clearly you did not read the definition I posted of pornography.

BTW- a USSC ruling depends on the composition of the bench at the time of that ruling. Their ruling only means it's their interpretation of the Constitution, and highly dependent on the political ideas of the sitting justices. In other words, depending on the prevailing political winds, the same issue before the USSC could result in 2 very different outcomes, depending on the composition of the courts. It means it's the opinion of the USSC, not necessarily of the majority of the people. Subtle, but important distinction. Think Roe v Wade. The debate rages on decades later- despite USSC rulings. (Just for the record here, I am pro choice)

Think the Death Penalty.

I disagree with the celebrity opinions on the gun control issue, but I do take notice that their arguments DO remain the same. Same with me- I can wholeheartedly disagree with how lax our societal standards have become, and regardless of how the laws may change, I take heart in knowing that my opinion is not from a lunatic fringe. Estimates say that 20% of our country identify with a liberal ideology, and around 40% say they are conservative. Funny, but our policies have actually become more liberal, despite the fact that twice as many folks disagree with that ideology. In other words, a vocal minority is driving our policies. But I digress- but only slightly.

I can only hope we return to more traditional social values. What about all the post 9/11 issues related to travel? The Patriot Act? Are you in favor of these things, which many believe infringed on our Constitutional rights?

[Lone Star]

This is your question: Since you're so keen on those particular social values, and that way of life; let me ask you this in all seriousness….if your wife/girlfriend/significant other gets a little bit 'mouthy', do you crack them in the teeth to show them the 'errors of their ways'? If not, then please explain why not; after all, it was ACCEPTABLE ‘back then’…..

How should I take a statement such as this? It's a direct question, asked in "all seriousness."

I’m not one to beat around the bush on something that I seriously want to say (I would have thought that would be fairly evident by now). If I HAD wanted to imply or infer that you actually committed acts like this, I would have come right out and said it. I used the phrase “in all seriousness” to highlight the example. Furthermore, if I HAD been attempting to imply or infer that you DID that, I wouldn’t have left you an ‘out’ or a chance to explain your position.

So it's all or nothing? Jim Crowe, no women's rights- there was nothing good about society, and it's all lumped together? I think you know better than that. Solid work ethic? Manners? Common courtesy? Decorum? Standards of behavior? Appropriate public conduct? I'm anxious to return to a time when it was OK to label aberrant behavior as such, when God or religion were not four letter words, when teachers were tasked with teaching instead of being surrogate parents, when a parent was responsible for raising their kids, not the government, a village, or the taxpayers.

You are the one that wanted to revert back to that time period, not ME! I really don’t need a history lesson on what the mentality was back then. I’m well aware of the mindset of that era entailed. It seems that for every positive value, there were at least as many (if not more) negative values.

Clearly you did not read the definition I posted of pornography.

BTW- a USSC ruling depends on the composition of the bench at the time of that ruling. Their ruling only means it's their interpretation of the Constitution, and highly dependent on the political ideas of the sitting justices. In other words, depending on the prevailing political winds, the same issue before the USSC could result in 2 very different outcomes, depending on the composition of the courts. It means it's the opinion of the USSC, not necessarily of the majority of the people. Subtle, but important distinction. Think Roe v Wade. The debate rages on decades later- despite USSC rulings. (Just for the record here, I am pro choice) Think the Death Penalty.

I read your definition, and looked at several other sources for their definition as well. Unfortunately, if a Supreme Court Justice cannot define pornography any better than what Justice Potter Stewart did, how can you expect to be able to nail down a ‘rock solid definition’? Aside from shouting “FIRE!” in a crowded theater, inciting to riot, causing libel or slander, or otherwise defaming someone, the interpretation of the first amendment has fundamentally been unchanged. Roe v. Wade has been held inviolate since the ruling was first handed down, despite how violent the pro-choice/pro-life war has gotten. Even capital punishment has been deemed constitutional, despite all the protesting of its opponents. There will always be someone somewhere that doesn’t agree with the Supreme Court’s rulings, but the point is moot. The Supreme Court has ruled, that’s the way it’s going to be.

You mention abortion and capital punishment; have you noticed that when those two subjects come before the Supreme Court, that there are one or more that will abstain from offering an opinion on the subject? Could it be that they realize that even though they don’t agree with the topic, that their opinion on the matter would be based more on their personal morals and values than on the letter of the law?

I disagree with the celebrity opinions on the gun control issue, but I do take notice that their arguments DO remain the same. Same with me- I can wholeheartedly disagree with how lax our societal standards have become, and regardless of how the laws may change, I take heart in knowing that my opinion is not from a lunatic fringe. Estimates say that 20% of our country identify with a liberal ideology, and around 40% say they are conservative. Funny, but our policies have actually become more liberal, despite the fact that twice as many folks disagree with that ideology. In other words, a vocal minority is driving our policies. But I digress- but only slightly.

Societal change is inevitable and necessary for the evolution of that society, and its members. I don’t fully agree with every change, but as long as the foundations of those changes are supported by law and they do not infringe upon the rights/freedoms/liberties guaranteed by the U.S. constitution, tilting at windmills isn’t going to change a damn thing.

Yes, society in general has become more accepting of certain things, but they’ve become far less tolerant of others. No, change isn’t always a ‘good thing’, but change is necessary in order for the society to grow. Since the political views, social norms and personal morals/values/beliefs cover a wide spectrum, not everyone is going to be behind any one topic. Hell, most people who rally against politics, Supreme Court rulings and the actions of our elected officials haven’t even taken the time or initiative to get off their duff and vote in the first place! There are a large number of ‘protesters’ against the actions of the military, but yet couldn’t be bothered to serve a DAY in uniform, or in defense of this country! It’s far too easy to sit back and bitch than it is to stand up and do SOEMETHING to change what they don’t like!

I can only hope we return to more traditional social values. What about all the post 9/11 issues related to travel? The Patriot Act? Are you in favor of these things, which many believe infringed on our Constitutional rights?

If you feel that your constitutional rights have been violated, it’s up to YOU to gather the facts necessary to prove and defend your position. In this thread however, you have espoused your personal views, values and moralistic objections; but have offered little in the way of cold, hard FACTS to support your position. In no way am I belittling your stance, I just expected more than a ‘knee-jerk reaction’….

The bottom line is, even though you're offended by the topic and the outcome of that article, there's little you can do about it. Yes, patrons of the NY Public Library system STILL have the right to view images that you consider pornography, and it's STILL protected by the first amendment.

[DwayneEMTP]

...So it's all or nothing? Jim Crowe, no women's rights- there was nothing good about society, and it's all lumped together? I think you know better than that. Solid work ethic? Manners? Common courtesy? Decorum? Standards of behavior? Appropriate public conduct? I'm anxious to return to a time when it was OK to label aberrant behavior as such, when God or religion were not four letter words, when teachers were tasked with teaching instead of being surrogate parents, when a parent was responsible for raising their kids, not the government, a village, or the taxpayers...

Herbie, how old are you? I'm nearly 50 years old, have lived all over the country, and can tell you that I've never, ever, small town or city, lived in a place that exhibited this Little House On The Prairie crap that you would like to "return" to. Unless you're 80-90 or more, I'm guessing that you as well are quoting a bunch of nonsense that you've seen on TV.

I've spent a gazillion hours working with the elderly as a volunteer and I can tell you that these certainly aren't the stories they tell. They would never...ever...go back to "the good old days" which only exist in the minds of those wanting to complain about today it seems.

Sometimes you lose me when you start quoting fantasy as reality....believe it or not, there were very few, if any, Mayberrys "back in the good ol' days."

Would I love to live in that utopian fantasy? Of course...but this isn't a discussion about current fantasies, but about current realities....

Dwayne

[paramedicmike]

So it's all or nothing? Jim Crowe, no women's rights- there was nothing good about society, and it's all lumped together? I think you know better than that. Solid work ethic? Manners? Common courtesy? Decorum? Standards of behavior? Appropriate public conduct? I'm anxious to return to a time when it was OK to label aberrant behavior as such, when God or religion were not four letter words, when teachers were tasked with teaching instead of being surrogate parents, when a parent was responsible for raising their kids, not the government, a village, or the taxpayers.

I bolded what I think is the crux of the argument here.

You just argued that you want to return to a time when parents are responsible for their kids. This should be the end of the discussion as you've pretty much just conceded that it is up to the parents to ensure that their kids are safe. You've also just argued that it's not up to the government, the "village" or the taxpayers to ensure child safety. This removes any responsibility for any governmental agency to place limits on, among other things, content available over public access points to the internet.

Clearly you did not read the definition I posted of pornography.

A dictionary definition doesn't cut it legally. The courts have argued this repeatedly and they can't even agree how to define it. So as reputable a resource as are Misters Merriam and Webster may be what you cited is not a legally bound definition.

BTW- a USSC ruling depends on the composition of the bench at the time of that ruling. Their ruling only means it's their interpretation of the Constitution, and highly dependent on the political ideas of the sitting justices. In other words, depending on the prevailing political winds, the same issue before the USSC could result in 2 very different outcomes, depending on the composition of the courts. It means it's the opinion of the USSC, not necessarily of the majority of the people. Subtle, but important distinction. Think Roe v Wade. The debate rages on decades later- despite USSC rulings. (Just for the record here, I am pro choice)

Think the Death Penalty.

You're right. The composition of SCOTUS can change when Justices retire. However, just because the composition of the Court changes doesn't mean that they will automatically rehear prior cases. Until the Court decides to hear a particular case the standard as it was last interpreted stands. And as it currently stands SCOTUS has refused to hear recent challenges that would have overturned the position that porn is free speech and thereby protected by the First Amendment.

I can only hope we return to more traditional social values. What about all the post 9/11 issues related to travel? The Patriot Act? Are you in favor of these things, which many believe infringed on our Constitutional rights?

Traditional social values like what? Who's tradition?

In response to your questions regarding post 9/11 life I'll answer with a quote long attributed to Ben Franklin: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

edited: spelling errors

Edited April 29, 2011 by paramedicmike

[akflightmedic]

I bolded what I think is the crux of the argument here.

You just argued that you want to return to a time when parents are responsible for their kids. This should be the end of the discussion as you've pretty much just conceded that it is up to the parents to ensure that their kids are safe. You've also just argued that it's not up to the government, the "village" or the taxpayers to ensure child safety. This removes any responsibility for any governmental agency to place limits on, among other things, content available over public access points to the internet

Well done....

[NYCEMS9115]

So we're defending PORN in the Library as a 1st Amendment Right.

http://www.emsworld.com/article/article.jsp?id=16924&siteSection=1

Then what's the difference in this case?

[DwayneEMTP]

So we're defending PORN in the Library as a 1st Amendment Right.

http://www.emsworld....4&siteSection=1

Then what's the difference in this case?

Why do you capitalize porn?

And if you can't see the difference between defending a persons right to free speech and equal access to information whether or not one can afford a home computer, and another hosemonkey being inappropriate and unprofessional while on duty, then you just simply don't have the intellect to understand this discussion I'm afraid.

And yes, that is a serious comment, not an attempt to insult you for sport....though these types of posts make the latter so very tempting....

Dwayne

[Lone Star]

So we're defending PORN in the Library as a 1st Amendment Right.

http://www.emsworld.com/article/article.jsp?id=16924&siteSection=1

Then what's the difference in this case?

Are you asking this question because you seriously cannot figure it out, or are you just lashing out because you got checked to the boards in Act I of this thread?

Obviously, we’ve established that what you’re attempting to define as ‘pornography’ is protected as free speech by the U.S. Supreme Court and that it IS legal to view not only in public libraries, but pretty much in public.

What this guy is charged with is called harassment. It could further be included in the definition of sexual harassment, both of which are illegal.

The legal definition of harassment is as follows:

Harassment is governed by state laws, which vary by state, but is generally defined as a course of conduct which annoys, threatens, intimidates, alarms, or puts a person in fear of their safety. Harassment is unwanted, unwelcomed and uninvited behavior that demeans, threatens or offends the victim and results in a hostile environment for the victim. Harassing behavior may include, but is not limited to, epithets, derogatory comments or slurs and lewd propositions, assault, impeding or blocking movement, offensive touching or any physical interference with normal work or movement, and visual insults, such as derogatory posters or cartoons.¹

Based on the allegations in the article, one would think that this guy would have realized that his behavior is unacceptable and therefore would amend such behaviors before they get him into more trouble; obviously that isn’t the case here.

I’m curious as to why you’re implying that these two examples are even remotely related. The implied corollary is that since pornography in public is protected as ‘free speech’, then what this guy is charged with should be protected as a demonstration of free speech. Unfortunately (at least for him) what he’s done is considered a criminal act, and there is no precedence of the U.S. constitution protecting criminal activities.

Why do you capitalize porn?

And if you can't see the difference between defending a persons right to free speech and equal access to information whether or not one can afford a home computer, and another hosemonkey being inappropriate and unprofessional while on duty, then you just simply don't have the intellect to understand this discussion I'm afraid.

And yes, that is a serious comment, not an attempt to insult you for sport....though these types of posts make the latter so very tempting....

Dwayne

I have to agree, it's very tempting to deliver a 'Gibbs slap to the back of the head' just to get him to start thinking....(blatant and shameless NCIS plug)

1. http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harassment/