Slashdot Mirror
Policing Porn Isn't Part of The Job
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."
Google news
Do they get to wear brown shirts too?
While I don't think the library is quite the place, it's good to know that some people are keeping an eye on the government as it's peering over our shoulders and aren't afraid to speak up when they see them going beyond where they're supposed to.
Someone save me from this sanity.
Where have I seen this before... /me tries to remember... uniformed men, telling the civilian populace what is acceptable viewing, and what is not.
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*?
And sick...
I agree that the public library is *NOT* the place to be doing one's pr0n surfing, HOWEVER, I'm more than a little concerned that the dept. of homeland insecurity folks have taken it upon themselves to assume the role of nanny. I would say the DHS folks went WAY beyond their jurisdiction here. In an actionable sense, if you get my drift. Two thumbs way down.
Today is a good day to code.
Yes, This has been a problem with many libraries including the one I take care of. We had to move the computer desks around so that the screens faced the front desk. There was a big problem with kids (even adults) looking at pron. Look, if you are going to look at porn do it at home. No internet?
Subscribe to Victoria Secret because its hard to find the Sears catalog anymore.
A lot of people have been saying for a long time that "homeland security", the PAT-RIOT act and the war on terror were just codewords for more government interference in people's daily lives. So now pornography is a homeland security issue?
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.
We are the 198 proof..
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.
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.
xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
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
This space for rent.
I have an idea that will save $3.6M/year...can you guess what it is?
I didn't realise you had state-level homeland security people. Sounds a bit confusing to me.
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
Where in the Bible does it say a man shouldn't have the right to knock out a couple knuckle babies in the privacy of his public library because he doesn't have a DVD player?
Any fool can criticise, condemn, and complain, and most fools do. - Benjamin Franklin
Cheers to the librarian who had the guts to stand up to defend the rights of the people.
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.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
(flame on hold)
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 were supposed to do, and their manager making sure they are doing what they are supposed to do none of this would have happened.
People make mistakes all the time, but it seems nowdays we blame the law or organization for the actions of a few. I think we should blame the law or the organization in certain cases but this isn't this just the case here. We all have *quasi-idiots* working around us at times. Just as they do not define who we are I don't think it is fair to say Homeland Security is therefore bad.
(/flame on hold)
(flame on begin)
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
FTA: "Still, Montgomery plans to train its homeland security officers "so they fully understand library policy and its consistency with residents' First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution," Romer said in his statement."
How about doing that before you send them out? It's one of those little points the rest of us would call: "obvious".
I'd be the first to say that you shouldn't be viewing porn sites on a library computer, and no, I don't think you have the "right" to use a publically funded, public access computer to do so. Get your own computer, a broadband connection, and go to town if you want to do that.
I do have a problem when you get to the terms "obscene" or "offensive." An amazing number of things can get rolled into those terms. I also find the idea that some "official" person is going to harass me even more offensive than any material on a computer screen. This seems to be a new extension of an old battle. Remember when the fight was over what books were in a library? That some government bureaucrat can tell me what I'm allowed to see or know is the most dangerous thing of all.
this only moderates the seriousness of the issue, but i feel it is fair to point out that this is some County's homeland security department, that is seemly unrelated to the federal homeland security agency.
that said, it's still a farce and needs to be dealt with, but in my experience with local government, it's much easier for stupid/retarded things to happen at the local level than it is at higher levels.
its all stupid, just varying degrees of it.. this happening with a county level department is just alittle bit easier to understand HOW it could happen... not why.
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.
The article states nothing about these employees actually trying to enforce Homeland Security regulatinos, they were clearly speaking on their own behalf. This was irresponsible, as they were in uniform and on duty. Keep on mind that they were also part of a subsidiary of the DHS. This is the same thing as if a fey Marines still in uniform did the same thing. It isn't Department of Defense policy to enforce indecency, but that doesn't mean they can keep every one of their thousands of employees from doing this kind of thing out of personal ignorance. Homeland Security is only focused on the safety of people, look at their site and look into their operations(http://www.dhs.gov./ They are not investigators, they are not crime stoppers, those guards were sent there to patrol and they stepped out of bounds. Look into the matter more and you can be sure they got in trouble for this irresponsible move on their part. Some people just are not aware that playboy is available at the library for its articles. If this mess was actually caused by a Homeland Security rule, I would say it might be a big deal, but clearly it had NOTHING to do with them except for that two employees stepped out of bounds while in uniform, and they need to be reprimanded.
I'm not upset in the least that a regular police officer stopped this, but I am surprised that they were able to.
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.
When people are standing in the libraries monitoring what we read, the terrorist have won.
They haven't killed any more people, but they've killed what makes America, America. Our freedom.
.
The library is EXACTLY the place. There are many reasons for looking at "porn" besides getting off. If it was being done in a library, from a book specifically bought in for its value, then the chances are that this "porn" was actually quite historically, culturally or socially important, and that a lot was being learned from it. I for one am very thankful that the library prevailed in this instance.
...if Homeland Security protected against threats to lives and property rather than personal morality. Of course, I'd also prefer to have the police do the same thing, rather than worry about what hookers or druggies are doing to themselves.
Montgomery County is one of the most liberal counties in one of the most liberal states in the country. The "Homeland Security" people in question work for the county, not for the US gov't. And I'm not surprised that they would stoop to bullying library patrons, although I doubt it's authorized, and the perpetrators will probably be disciplined (but not fired, oh no).
Although, you have to wonder if it's another hoax, like that other "Damning Homeland Security Library Story".
Although this was done by people working for a liberal county, in a liberal state, and the whole idea of "Homeland Security Departments" was hatched by liberals and just adopted by Bush after 9/11, I'm sure everyone here will blame Bush. Go Slashdot!
Obscenity is defined at the local level, and that's fine. And those in many Alabama counties are the most clearly defined and stringent on the books. This degree of state- and local intregity in the make-up of quality-of-life legislation was everything that the Founding Fathers were about. Today, the fine folks of West Hollywood don't have to play by Salt Lake City's mores, and vice-versa. My bet is that the people of Montgomery don't want what they have defined locally as obscene being viewed within the locally run and funded Public Library. The fact that the enforcement is via local DHS dudes muddies the waters, unfortunately, but it doesn't change the fact the locals don't want teh pr0n in the public facilities. The satellite distributors use zipcode masking in their signal encryption to prevent distribution where it's illegal -- they 'get' it. The Internet distributors are about 15 years behind the times, unfortunately.
I'm always amused by how many people who clamor for a local principality's 'right' to perform gay marriages get their panties in a bunch when another local principality flexes its muscles to enforce their 'right' to ban what they consider obscene. Two sides of the same coin: suck it up.
They might think they can, but after a few expensive sexual harassment suits I think they will "learn" that free speech doesn't protect public viewing of pr0n.
Instead of writing "two uniformed men" it should have been written as "two uninformed men"...
"Insanity is doing the same thing over again expecting a different result."
I blame Bush as much as I blame everyone else in charge. The only difference between the two major parties is how they talk before the election. Once in control, they both expand government power at the cost of the liberty of the citizens. After such a mediocre Republican president, as long as the Democrats don't fuck it up and send in another Al Gore, they'll have the presidency. Just watch and you'll see that they do the same stuff once they're in control. On a related note, if you want to end all of this, help the Libertarians. I do and I enjoy it.
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.
We need to be free to jerk off in a public library and all public spaces. As long as it does not disturb other people
Last year I worked as a bartender in a small independent restaurant.
We had good employees and bad employees, sure, but we NEVER had a major incident where the bad/lazy employees did something truely detrimental to the restaurant. Why? Because we had good management.
Policy is not just what is on paper, it's also the internal attitudes of the superiors in each department. If the superiors truely felt that the rights of the American citizens were first priority, their subordinates would too, and would never try something like this. If they thought that their new department was obviously created so they could suppress any 'badness' throughout their little scrap of American turf than thats what their subordinates would do--case in point.
This isn't a case of someone stepping out of line--it's a case of someone following his commander's attitudes and unwritten leadership. And this particular attitude ("what I think is right matters more than America basic rights") seems to be present in every commander, all the way up to the Commander in Chief.
Salon's http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/02/10/ask thepilot173/index.html> Ask the Pilot writes of a parallel experience while taking photos at an airport, with security personnel not being quite sure of the law. . . .
...this is a direct result of letting the fundamentalist Christian wing of your party hijack it. Not to single out fundamentalist Christians, as fundamentalists of ANY stripe tend to have dictatorial tendencies based on their "knowledge" of what's right and wrong because some obscure religious tome tells them so. Until the REAL conservatives in the Republican party rise up and give the reactionaries a swift boot (as opposed to boat) in the kiester, you can expect more of the same.
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.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
+1, profound
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
Where did you get such a backwards view of things?
...to me that we have DOH agents harrasing harmless people in local libraries yet our borders and local communities are saturated with illegal immigrants - most of whom are contributing to a complete collapse of social programs across all Federal, state, and local levels! Enforce the friggin immigration laws and EVERYTHING becomes much easier. I'm all for LEGAL immigration (and perhaps the laws need to be modified a bit to allow easier access to people who don't mind pay taxes like the rest of us and who aren't criminals), but we should be spending more money and effort on stamping out illegal immigration. This would go a LOOOONG way toward meeting the DOH objectives as well!
I used to fear clowns...but I'm discovering that chimps are far, far, worse.
Having actually read the article I discovered that the two morons making the library announcement were county officials in the county dept of "Homeland Security" and were not part of the US Gov't Dept of Homeland Security. Moreover, these two blokes were acting on their own initiative and without approval from their superiors.
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.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
moron.
This isn't about porn, it's about the government deciding in every facet of our lives what is right and wrong.
I don't really care for the idea of people viewing porn on public terminals either, it's a bit rude, and potentially out and out disgusting.
However, I can live with that, what I can't live with is the government turning into the morality police. I do not want to see that in America, or anywhere else for that matter.
Btw there is a big difference looking at porn at a public library and actually wanking it while doing so. One of those things can result in you being arrested for indecent exposure.
I don't care what you say... Librarians are sexy, and I'm a conservative! I won't be going to library to see some porn on internet. I'm going to the library to see some library hotties.
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...
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
Books are cheap.
Let people do their information viewing in the privacy of their own home and foot the bill themselves.
I object to the public financing the vehicle for poor people to get FREE information at taxpayers expense. These peasants go information seeking in the library then leave the information behind for someone else. BS to that. That's just flat out wrong.
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 stickers on their SUV's with the intention of other drivers seeing their information. 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.
You want information? Do it at home behind closed doors but don't do it on the taxpayers tab.
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.
And since the information in the library problem isn't being handled I think they should simply remove the books from the library. Let people go buy their own, they're cheap now.
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.
'Scuse me, but nothing in the article mentioned any messes left to be cleaned up. If that happens, it's covered by *real* laws, not the fake laws rolling around in the heads of a bunch of undertrained, glorified mall cops. The fact that they were trying to enforce laws they obviously haven't been trained to understand should be enough for you to withdraw your support for their actions.
Further, calling anyone who views porn a "pervert" is misinformed and inflammatory. Webster defines perversion as "any abberant sexual practice." A solid majority of people use pornography, and 38% of people find nothing wrong with porn. If more than ten percent of people are doing something, you really have to abuse the English language to call it "abberant".
Libraries are gateways to all manner of information, and it's not up to you or any other self-appointed thought police to determine which information people should be looking at. You don't get to look over people's shoulders to determine whether their behavior meets with your approval.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
It's good to see Jerry Falwell reads slashdot - and has mod points. Jeeeeezuuuus!
This is an example of why privacy has to be preserved and ideas like cameras in the home 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.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
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 looking caps to decide the law for us.
"Is the real problem the law, homeland security or just the people in the position?"
It seems to me these officers had the feeling that they were the law; they were the police, DA, and judge all in one. This sounds like a fundamental orgazational issue, not just one or two bad apples.
I think they should be fired, not reassigned. They have demonstrated no ability to understand their job after presumably at least a year on the job. In most place if you have no idea what you're doing after a few months, you get fired. Why not these guys?
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Don't forget the "hostile work environment" scam currently being used by Democrats and lawyers to eliminate anything in the workplace that might offend a person with extremely delicate sensibilities.
Riiiiiiiiiight.
"Computers are cheap. Let people do their porn viewing in the privacy of their own home and foot the bill themselves."
... Police Unable or Unwilling to Arrest".
... your guilty of something. They should just arrest ... they can look in the book later, and if they can't find anything, they can just make something up.
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
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
THIS is exactly how it begins, the programmed mob doing what they think their masters truly desire.
When people are standing in the libraries monitoring what we read, the terrorist have won.
They haven't killed any more people, but they've killed what makes America, America. Our freedom.
Yup. Well said indeed. Basically the USA became a 'police state' when the first WTC tower got planebombed on 2001-09-11. A single, fiendishly intricate (yet outwardly simple), nightmarishly brutal one-day operation whose afteraffects are STILL felt in America and around the world over 4 years later....
If only American foreign policy treated other sovereign nations as equals in the 'halls' of humanity instead of resources to exploit/discard for their own, sole self-interest, '9/11' might not have happened in the first place.
Perhaps there will be a real lasting change in Washington D.C. come the next Presidential election in 2008....
As someone else is quoted/paraphrased as saying (who said this quote?)
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
In a nutshell, Americans are losing their rights to be left alone and do what they please within the law in the name of 'homeland security' -- something granted to them in writing by the Founding Fathers of America.
What a tragedy....
(Long line inserted here to get around "comment has too few character per line" filter... Long line inserted here to get around "comment has too few character per line" filter... Long line inserted here to get around "comment has too few character per line" filter... Long line inserted here to get around "comment has too few character per line" filter...)
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!
Link no longer working ("Server error"). Here's a Google cache.
A couple of unarmed county yahoos in uniforms and baseball caps with "Homeland Security" written on them come into the library and start telling people what to do?
Um...these guys are a hair above a rent-a-cop. And I'm not in no way slamming rent-a-cops. So these Barney Fifes are going to clean up the county and show those pinheads at the police department they made a mistake by not letting them on the force! (That was just my impression of the story).
But hey, good times right?
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
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.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
OK, so I'm not living in Montgomery Co., MD currently (ironically Montgomery Co, VA currently), I have lived next door in Charles Co., MD and if you think that region of the country is liberal, then you need to get out more and go more places. I'd suggest out west or possibly north for a while.
And to weigh in on the debate, the local DHS workers should have stopped and talked to the librarian and not the patrons, as it's the librarian's job to know what is allowed in the library. If it was something inappropriate, I'm sure the library has methods to deal with it appropriately.
I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by
Anyone looking at porn in a library filled with kids is bad. No one wants to be the Library where that guy was caught whacking off under the desk
Sure, but that's not what we're talking about: Looking at porn and masturbating are two completely different things, just like lusting after a woman and raping a woman are two completely different things. Don't equate the two. Masturbating in a library is wrong, regardless of whether the person doing it was looking at porn or perving after the 10-year olds in the library or after the hot 19yr old librarian behind the counter. By all means, punish and ban people who masturbate in libraries, for masturbating in the library. Not everyone who looks at porn is such a sicko, in fact only a miniscule percentage probably are, just like only a tiny percentage of people who look at porn are rapists.
this was a county "homeland security" department, for what purposes that county decided to make one, who knows. Now if you want to get excited about the U.S. attourney general and pr0n, that would be better.
It doesn't require that they make stupid decisions, so what was your point?
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
Nonboby wants their children watching porn at the library, I know this will sound a bit silly but we see worst things on the street. I left the US because of the violence they have in there, now I dont have to care if I have a nice car because I won't get killed. Come on homeland security? are you sure this will change a bit? You have to change a lot of a culture that has been made of violence and blood. Im sorry but that's real, just think about it his is kind of true.
"Oh wait" "Click on that picture, there" "Man, she's got some nice hooters."
After accidentally viewing the pornography on a library computer one of the Homeland Security officers was heard to say "I'll be in my bunk."
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
fuck those guys. much more of that shit and we'll need another armed revolution. none of this nancy-boy sitin bs.
Everyone remembers when the "Homeland Security Agents" showed up at someone's door for requesting a copy of Mao Zedong's Little Red Book. It turned up that there is no such thing as a Homeland Security Agent. It had to be from another agency. The incident with the little red book turned up to be a hoax anyway. Just be wary of these things. Doesn't mean its 100% accurate, just like the last library Homeland Security incident.
And no, our heroes don't need to be libertarians, just true Americans.
Is... why is Janet's nipple bad while, say, MY nipple would be OK? I mean, I can wander around on a beach topless and no one so much as blinks. I'd be willing to bet that if Janet had exposed Justin Timberlake's nipple during the superbowl halftime, there would have be no uproar at all! And what's so bad about nipples anyway? We all have them! We all know what they look like! We've all used them, and we're all born knowing HOW to use them! But somehow after the first couple of years (Or in some extreme cases, six) half of them suddenly become verboten? Why, I've got a mind to start a nipples fan club, where everyone around the world can come together in support of the maligned and misunderstood nipple! Now if you'll excuse me I... suddenly feel like having milk...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
So the Ministry of Truth is ramping up.
The library is EXACTLY the place. There are many reasons for looking at "porn" besides getting off. If it was being done in a library, from a book specifically bought in for its value, then the chances are that this "porn" was actually quite historically, culturally or socially important, and that a lot was being learned from it. I for one am very thankful that the library prevailed in this instance.
Who the Hell is modding this funny? The guy has a perfectly good point. For example, how often do we hear the argument that porn is a driving force behind adoption of new technology? The significance of porn in our society is a legitimate area of interest, as works such as Pornography: A Secret History of Civilisation have explored.
I haven't read TFA (do people still do that?) and for all I know this story is about some sleaze jacking off in a library, but the parent post makes an excellent point regardless.
I'm a registered "decline to state." These guys weren't policing morality in the religious sense, they were attempting to enforce the neo-puritanical "sexual harrassment" laws, as they interpreted them. They evidently subscribe to the viewpoint that looking at anything of a sexual nature is harrassment of someone, somewhere. Under that interpretation, they could equally have taken the stance that viewing anti-Muslim websites would be harrassment of Muslims. It isn't the GOP endowing these bozos with the tools they use in their attempts to become Thought Police, it's the "it's your Constitutional right to never be offended" types and their fellow travelers in government (some of whom are members of the GOP, admittedly, but along with plenty of Democrats as well).
... gather evidence against massage parlors by paying for and receiving oral sex. Policing sexuality is clearly a "tricky" business, i guess. Does anyone else see these stories as another sign that the U.S. is headed toward the kind of twisted Christian theocracy Margaret Atwood describes in The Handmaid's Tale?
See Washington Post article to read about the Spotsylvania police "beat".
Is this sig nificant?
Oh, you're one of those who think women don't enjoy porn...
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
http://www.safelibraries.org/whomtobelieve.htm
Homeland Security Heroes Silenced By Self-Deluded Library Propaganda! An Example of the Effectiveness of the ALA's Propaganda Machine: Getting Government Officials to Silence Themselves.
Here is one example of the effectiveness of the ALA's propaganda campaign. In Policing Porn Is Not Part of Job Description; Montgomery Homeland Security Officers Reassigned After Library Incident, 17 Feb 2006, two Montgomery County Homeland Security Department heroes do the right thing, perhaps in the wrong way, by telling library users to stop viewing porn on public library computers! Reaction? The librarians squawk their propaganda lines. Result? The Homeland Security heroes are assigned to different jobs and their boss apologizes for their actions then apparently unknowingly spouts ALA propaganda that a library is a public forum where anything goes and that people may view pornography unfettered. (Not true, read US v. ALA.)
The ALA has got the government officials to silence themselves using a propaganda technique called "conversion": "We mean conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media."
Even worse, the boss then says his whole department will undergo ALA mind control: "Montgomery plans to train its homeland security officers 'so they fully understand library policy and its consistency with residents' First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution,' Romer said in his statement." Here is a sneak peek at the ALA's mind control sessions the Montgomery County Homeland Security Department will use due to its self delusion that library policy is pure and ALA librarians know best and would never violate the law or endanger children:
Has anyone ever read the constitution?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." - Amendment I
Interesting things to note here: 1) It only prohibits the Federal Government from abridging the freedom of speech. Local state authorites are not Congress. It only prohibits Congress. 2) It seperates the Government from the Church, not the church from the Government. 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. Jefferson never had anything to do with the US constitution. 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. If you don't like that, move to a different state. That is the great thing about this country we live in.
Man is the lowest-cost, 150-pound, nonlinear, all-purpose computer system which can be mass-produced by unskilled labor.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-340616798 1875572831&q=family+guy
The link given goes to the login form for some private site - If /. cant provide a open, public link to a story, then dont post it.
/. users could check a pref to supress their appearance completely.
It would be really nice if articles that linked to private sites culd be marked somehow, and
When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you still get evil. Whichever one you care to choose, the two major parties are not very different in their basic philosophies. Government has the right to do what it wants, it's just a matter of deciding which individual rights we want to violate more egregiously. Does your money go to corrupt unions and bureaucrats, or defense contractors and morality police? That's what you are really voting on when you vote for the "lesser evil"
When I read this, I actually imagined that the "officers" were really just interested in getting people riled up until one of them got angry enough to qualify for some variation of "distubing the peace" that they could actually act on.
Or they could just be puritan assholes.
My God! It's full of eval()'s.
Computers are cheap.
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.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Pornography is writing about or making pictures of people who receive payment for engaging in sexual acts.
By this definition, Manet's Olympia is pornography because the subject is a prostitute and is presented as such.(but was intended to shock.) Botticelli's Venus is not pornography because neither of the women in the picture is a prostitute and there is no suggestion at all of the sale of sexual services(the picture was clearly intended to give rise to a number of complex emotions including tenderness towards and respect for women). The figure of Luxury in Poussin's Dance to the Music of Time is not pornographic (the woman is simply presented as enjoying herself and making this clear to the viewer.)
The lines become slightly blurred when considering some "actresses" who get paid for simulated sex or nudity, but in a world without highly paid lawyers and MPAAs I suspect that a number of mainstream films would be classed as pornographic on this definition. Which, actually, is why I like it. A definition that omits the rich and powerful from possible opprobium is a poor definition.
Obscene material including unpaid "amateurs" is still pornographic because they are doing it in hope of future revenue, i.e. it's prostitution with deferred compensation. And material including the unwitting or unwilling is a violation of people's rights (in countries where people have rights) and is simply criminal.
The question of whether people should be allowed to look at porn in public libraries is quite different, as it is about societal norms not definitions, and in my mind has a lot to do with whether you would want to use their chair afterwards.
Pining for the fjords
Librarians are some of the most under appreciated people in our society. They're far more than just curators of large book collections, many of them care deeply about issues related to privacy, copyright, freedom of access to reading material, and so on, - basically, many of the issues the likes of the EFF deal with a lot.
:)
The American Library Association, the largest library association in the world, takes a particularly strong stand on civil liberties, intellectual freedom and privacy, and those who really want to show they care can even order themselves an 'Radical Militant Librarian' 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, a great webcomic about life inside a library.
Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
I grew up almost within walking distance of that library. All I can say is it sounds pretty consistent of Bethesda: a bunch of people with too much money and too much time who haven't the slightest grip on reality, and think they're a lot more important than they are.
And, speaking of violations of civil liberties, I know someone in Bethesda who got in a little misunderstanding with the Montgomery County Police, asked to see a laywer, and was told to "shut up", because he "watches too many movies."
Facists
If you bothered to RTFA, then you would have seen that the two moronic state homeland security officers were enforcing a *countywide sexual harrassment policy*. Obviously, these two idiots can't tell the difference between a county employee and a library patron. And they didn't understand that patrons have a right to use the computers as they see fit. And they clearly overstepped their bounds and were bitchslapped to deskjobs. Not as big a deal as everyone makes it out to be. But still freakin scarey that what they thought they were doing was right.
I'm glad you've got the bible to tell you not to have sex with men, since you don't understand that "separation" is a mutual condition between bodies. No doubt you've moved to one of the states which will keep you from indulging your homosexual urges with strong laws, along with the rest of your repressed homosexual clique.
Too bad the rest of us love America more for our ability to change the laws to protect our rights to live free, rather than our freedom to run away from tyrants like you are so happy for.
--
make install -not war
Few sites even dare think about turning down the googlebot. I don't know google's address ranges at the moment without looking. Do you? They could add new address space any day and you wouldn't be the wiser - you'd notice only when it's already too late and your page is no longer listed on google.
Perhaps.
I'd say we became a 'police state' when WTC7 was ordered 'pulled' and
then we were later told it somehow collapsed in the same manner as the other
two buildings.
http://www.wtc7.net/
When I read that story, I realized that those two people needed to experience a citizen beat down and I think that would pretty much curb the temptation by others to do something like that again. At least for a while.
It all starts with porn and before you know it you have no rights at all.
There was no connection? Some good examination should be done on what there is no connection to. Like all the abu Gareb torturers were working on thier own even though the White House condoned torture, or One of the reasons stated (at one time it was the main reason) for the attack on Iraq was Sadam had connections to Al Keida, totally proven false but no knee jerk firings followed. Now you have the precursor to a national thought police running into your library. "Homeland Security" being used against Americans? Who would have seen that connection? Show me those officers being fired and a press release denying the activity and I'll still be looking for connections.
Don't forget the words of wise men. "Those who would trade safety for freedom deserve neither." and "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" Oh, it was the same man! Would Thomas Jefferson have approved of a "preemptive attack" or imprisoning Americans with no charges and no trial for years? There were no phones to tap then but the Fourth Amendment is pretty clear about fishing trips too.
People like to point out the similarities between the DHS and the Nazis or to the ministries of George Orwell's "1984" but plenty of good examples exist today, like in Saudi Arabia they have the Matawa also known as "The Authority for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vices" they are government funded and travel around like a low budget police force. When they find law breakers they take out batons and smack the morality back into the masses. What crimes are they looking for? Unmarried couples, women not covering up, people not going to prayer, there's a big list as there usually is. I have seen their antics and see America as moving in this direction. In fact there are too many similarities between the views of the current White House and the House of Saud (or more precisely The current state of Saudi Arabia)
How soon until "Homeland Security" agents are given more power and become similar to the Saudi Arabian Mutaween (Relgious Police)?
Homeland Security = Our neutered version of the Mutaween (for the time being, I'm sure more terrorist attacks will happen where we will have to tell the people that they need more powers). Shit, later on they might as well be the Gestapo.
That's a typical Republican statement designed to shape the way people think about the other side. It has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with manipulation, which the Republicans have gotten very good at. Despite moral depravity that would make Clinton blush the Republicans will probably come out on top next election, too.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
well... why?
your freedom means you can consume, or express yourself about your consuming. at the same time, anybody is free to object. it all gets sorted out. it doesn't have to get sorted out in your favor just because you want to consume. what you consume may not be lawful. it may be out of place at the time. it may not be healthful, and society may have decided to take on some duty concerning your health. maybe you want to be left alone anyway. in some cases, too bad, the nanny laws are in place whether you like them or not.
personally i have zero sympathy for consumers of pornography (other than to feel sorry for their spouses) and see no reason why porn should be protected consumption or expression. pornography is a neurotoxin.
the whole idea of "Homeland Security Departments" was hatched by liberals
Explain.
How is a step towards a police state a "liberal" idea, exactly?
You can't take the sky from me...
I think it was on Salon that I first saw christianist.
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
my, how energetic we are at defending a "right" to something so completely indefensible.
people get quite worked up defending their "right" to download porn, in public yet, or to pirate music and software.
i agree with some other posts that the enemies of this society have won. values and virtues have been corroded from within, and the prevailing herd-think will classify as a religious zealot anyone with the temerity to say so.
What a great way to get people to read the story: lie and say registration is required. Then everyone ends up reading TFA because they want to see where the registration is required (so they can bitch about it).
Also great karma whoring - even though most people know that WaPo doesn't ever require registration.
Get your Unix fortune now!
Use a standards complaint browser to break the rules!
Why do we even try to standardize anything anymore?
Get your Unix fortune now!
The library may have its own policies on sexual harassment that government what the employees do as employees, but it cannot enforce them against patrons (or off-duty employees acting as patrons). The only reason private firms are even allowed to have such policies is because free speech guarantees do not apply (mostly) on private property -- the owner gets to dictate the rules (within the bounds of applicable laws) and if you don't like it you're free to leave. See a multitude of other court decisions on pornographic e-mails sent to co-workers, union organizing efforts, etc.
-- Old Man Kensey
they're getting bulldozed soon. I've never seen the government employee yet who would abandon a target for bullying. They just come back with tanks.
Since within this timeframe global warming effects will probably grow powerful enough, there is a good chance the internal security and freedom issues will just go away along with modern civilization.
In the 30-ties, a new police force appeared in Germany too. It was too uninformed about it's duties, it was too eager to overstep it's authority. The name of the formation was SA, and the founder was the fuhrer of the Third Reich...
Ideally, each of us would learn about the system, the issues, and the players, but we don't. Low voter turnout is the sign of a either a healthy democracy. (or sometimes a protest against a system of oppression) It means that people don't feel that elected officials affect them.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
Get those folks to stop looking at porn, and back to working on IEDs as soon as possible.
Google *really* needs to add a mechanism that lets a site say "this is not freely-accessable content", and then index it, but allow the user to not see it. Maybe a robots.txt extension. Then Google can give registration-only sites an option other than providing a different page to Google to try to suck in users or to be totally unindexed.
That way, registration sites can allow Google to index their sites without forcing all of us to keep hitting these damned registration pages that most of us hate.
(It would also allow useful site: searches for those with subscriptions.)
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
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.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
...these guys should go back to flipping burgers...
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
Sounds just like the incident wherein the college student said that he was visited by some FBI and DHS for getting a book from his college library... which turned out to be a lie.
No names are named, nobody is quoted. This whole thing stinks from the start.
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
And they call it the "People's Republic of China" also.
Yeah, this batch of Republicans aren't that Republican, are they? What is it they're always busting the chops of the Democrats for? Oh, yeah, big government, big spending, the government messing with the lives of average Americans, the Democrats tarnishing the US Constitution....
I tend to be liberal, myself, but I support a lot of the Republican ideals, like the reduction of government spending (but I'd still maintain social programs, and give federal funding to schools, and other liberal junk), decrease of government, protection of the US Constitution, including the second amendment, etc. I think I'm socially liberal, fiscally conservative.
Mostly.
But even *I* can tell this current batch doesn't give a monkey's testicle about the US Constitution, nor the other ideals generally espoused by the Replublicans. I just can't figure out why so many other people just accept it.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Sorry kids, I linked to the paid subscription content and not the ad-supported content. My mistake. Should be, as noted by polite poster above: http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/02/10/ask thepilot173/index_np.html
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 [...] stolen goods (copyright infringement)
I agree with the rest of your post, but I must point out Dowling v. United States (1985), in which the Supreme Court held that illegally copied materials are not stolen goods (because copyright infringement does not "easily equate" to theft).
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Glass is half empty type, huh?
So now we have our own versions of the Muslim world's "Morality Police"?
Yeah, like totally. My sisters boyfriends uncles daughters cousin saw this dude get his hands chopped off at Baskin Robins for like having a Hustler magazine in his pocket.
Just keep repeating: "The exception is the Trend :)"
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?
Girl vs. Beasts of the Field Porn? CHECK! eww
Midget Porn? CHECK!
Bukakke Porn? CHECK!
Prophet/Saviour Porn? PROBABLY!
Puritanism? NOT FUCKING REALLY.
Ok I'm being a bit of an ass and all but my point is that we have at this time the most freedom (that the puritanical would oppose) that we have ever had. Those security guys at the Library were fools and they did not prevail, although I do hope the Librarian would kick someone out browsing the hardcore porn in public view at the Library. Standards in the public square are not in my view too puritanical (Can't fuck on the table at Dennys for example).
Oh and were are better than the Islamofascists because their version of Slashdot involves a sword and your head is the dot.
Sometimes at night I imagine the darkness is filled with horrible things with too many teeth, like Julia Roberts.
First they came for the men who surfed pornography at the library...
And I didn't speak up, because I surfed pornography at home.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
yah.. u're right.. and while you're at it, I think we should force background checks on people before they are allowed to use a library. It may also be a good idea to have them pass through the metal detector, removing their shoes to make sure they're not sneaking any dangerous items into the library or perhaps bringing in their own porn... oh my.. I have to run, the 700 Club is coming on... and I don't want to miss it and be doomed to hell...
This really bugs the hell out of me, and I've seen it coming for a while. The phrase "in the interest of homeland security" is pretty annoying, because some damned agency or other entity out there will use that as a convenient cover to force their agenda onto others (even if that agenda has squat to do with security in the first place). It looks like we're seeing the old "bait and switch" on a grander scale.
This space for rent!
No, I have no figures to back that up, and yes, actually from my arse, which is why I phrased it as a question; Because I don't actually know.
--Though, I do recall reading some stats to that effect, (although, my memory suggests the percentage was actually upwards around 70%, but since I don't know what I'm talking about, I figured it'd be safer to round down. You know, to maintain my integrity.)
But logically. . . When you consider that the U.S.A. is the leader in video media market saturation and general availability of media production technology, and that the entire state of California is filled with porn stars; (and honestly, what other country can make a claim like that?), the U.S. remains one of the most over-sexed, immature, and media hungry cultures on the face of the Big Blue Marble. I'd say that Americans are certainly contenders for the crown of Most Porn Ever Made. --With Japan coming in a middling second. But as you point out, I'm just pulling fake facts from the air, so don't take my words too seriously.
-FL
That there is not any discussion of how fun a job policing porn would be? I guess admitting that would ensure I don't get the job...oh no, I meant, that would be entirely detestable, but someone's got to do it right?
Since when is it appropriate to browse for porn at a library??? That's definitly weird
You just got troll'd!
All kinds of people have all kinds of crazy ideas. The POTUS doesn't have to, need to, or should implement them all.
I should note that W. Bush was against DHS before he was for it, wait I thought Kerry was the flip-flopper?
Why is the uber department allowed to waste time and resources in this way? Leave things to professional law enforcement instead of some bunch of amataur polical police.
What kind of country needs a Gestapo to patrol public building like libraries?
I have never heard anything so obviously fascist.
Okay, so you get a great new job defending the fatherland - sorry - homeland from evil terrorists. You generally wander around in your small hick town for a couple of years, but no turbin wearing insane arabs appear to be around, so you have to do something to justify your salary. What could be better than protecting the public from indecency; surely your local conservative community would back a hard line on "protecting the children"?
The police... no, I mean the people tell the police what... no...
I think my head is going to asplode.
Get off my launchpad!
And yes, they played that stupid "good cop/bad cop" thing you think could only happen on TV. I had a really hard time not laughing until after they left.
According to the county results, Montgomery County had, I believe, the 3rd highest percentage for Kerry out of 24 counties, and it missed 2nd by one percentage point.
So, while it's probably not one of the most liberal places in the country, it is, according to election results, exactly as I portrayed it : one of the most liberal counties in one of the most liberal states.
It's nice to see America honoring the practices of other cultures.
Mutaween = uniformed men who, under color of governmental authority, enforce public morality, enforce dress codes, arrest unrelated males and females caught socializing, and seize banned consumer products and media regarded as unacceptable. See also Mutaween.