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."
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*?
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.
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..
I am a registered Republican (lesser of two evils, etc.).
So now we have our own versions of the Muslim world's "Morality Police"?
The main problem I have with the GOP is this damn puritanism. This is the 21st century, dammit! If we force our views (actually their views, not mine. I have TB's of pr0n) on others, how are we better than the damn Islamist's?
The GOP is liable to take it up the ass big time in November. Hopefully this will clear out some of the ancient old farts so we can later elect younger pols with more of a Libertarian bent.
But I'm not holding my breath...
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.
People shouldn't look at porn in public libraries
Define "porn".
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Indeed... there is not much difference between one form of religious nut and other.. in both cases those people try to force their views on others..
lesser of two evils, etc.
These situations will not improve until people learn to count higher than two.
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.
Define "porn".
Exactly my point. If I'm looking at a nude piece of art and some tooth-fairy worshipping zealot thinks its gross, I shouldn't be stopped. They have a choice not to look over your shoulder.
And if you are worried about the children, guess what? They got here through SEX!! Yes, a penis actually entered a vagina and sperm was injected! There might have even been some oral sex to get the whole thing started!!
How about not worrying about the kids being parented by the government and start parenting them yourself.
Sound waves should be free!
Most christians or muslism are not that hardline, but seems that the hardliners do have way too much media publicity.
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.
The (Christian) "religious nuts" to which the GP refers don't recognise separation of church and state, either.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
"Hoever, I get so damn tired of being told what rights others have, when it comes out of my pocket."
But it's OK when the rights you enjoy come out of others pockets? You, sir, or madam, frighten me.
Virtually all of the rights we enjoy are, in one way or another, out of the public's pockets. We pay for a military, and (supposedly) law enforcement to, among other things, defend those rights.
Democracy and Freedom are not easy, nor for the faint of heart. These concepts demand that you value those concepts to the extent that the guy next door, whose opinions and tastes and religion you absolutely despise, is worth your defending his rights. This may include his right to condemn your favorite candidate, his right to burn the flag we love in protest, and his right to have access to materials in a public media forum that you don't agree with.
I promise you, there are church ladies out there who are angry that they have to pay for your right to look at 14th-century Italian painters at your library - because there might be pictures of naked chubby girls in there. They resent having to pay for your right to view this trash. Ridiculous? How, exactly, are you any different?
Because, believe me - Your neighbor that you despise may not agree with what you have to say, believe, or have access to in your library either. The very essence of the core of our government, that we all pay lip service to, but let slip away when it gets tough, is the concept of inalienable rights. I can't take your rights - and you can't take mine. And we each have to pay a little for that priviledge.
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
Democrats need to learn that while the constitution does protect your speech, it does not protect your feelings.
I was going to say something about how easy and pointless it is to cherry-pick transgressions from any party, but you know what? It doesn't matter.
I don't fucking care who's encouraging the brownshirt activity; it just has to stop.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
These situations will not improve until people learn to count higher than two.
Unfortunately, the problems with plurality voting are described by game theory, not arithmetic. Everybody knows how to count higher than two; not so many people know the differences between instant runoff, Condorcet, and approval voting.
What's worse: the biggest problem with democracy in America today is apathy, not ignorance. People get furious at anyone who voted for "the other guy"; yet for some reason they take it easy on the more numerous group who couldn't be bothered to vote at all.
If the two guys are fired then I agree. If not, then it probably means they have at least the implicit approbation of their superiors.
As for the Bush administritation, they just have to create the climate . They certainly won't give every orders. Do you really think Hitler did everything all by himself ? There was a lot of local initiative like this one in Germany in the 1930.
And guess what... The Bush administration did create the climate for such things to happen. So yes it's related to Bush, Ashcroft and all the others.
It only prohibits the Federal Government from abridging the freedom of speech. Local state authorites are not Congress. It only prohibits Congress.
Let me refer you to the 14th Amendment incorporation doctrine (and n.b. that state constitutions all AFAIK have guarantees that are the same or even stronger than this).
It seperates the Government from the Church, not the church from the Government.
No, it does both. If the government cannot engage in dealings of a religious capacity it can't take orders from a religion either. To do so would be to have one of those religions be officially on top, and then you're back doing what even you agree isn't permissible.
So, the church can influence the Federal Government quite a bit. And they can practicaly run State Governments if it is allowed in that state's constitution.
Let me remind you of the republican clause of the Constitution as well.
If you don't like that, move to a different state. That is the great thing about this country we live in.
No, the great thing about this country is that you can be so wrong that I wouldn't trust you if you said that the sun rises in the east, and yet we're secure enough, knowing that you'll always be marginalized as a nut, that we don't have to lock you away or shoot you or otherwise get our hands dirty in order to keep you from being dangerous to others. It's great.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
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.
See, here's the problem. We have limitations on the power of government for a reason. It's because government badly abuses it when it gets the opportunity -- years of the FBI under Hoover taught us that lesson very well.
Now, lots of people -- possibly even well-meaning people -- in a position to receive increased powers are all for those increased powers. After all, *they* know that they are not going to abuse those powers. Surely, if someone else or someone later on abuses those powers, they'll be smacked down.
The problem is that this logic also justifies authority having unlimited, absolute power.
We already had to go through this very painfully before.
From WP's CIA article:
DCI James R. Schlesinger had commissioned a series of reports on past CIA wrongdoing. These reports, known euphemistically as "the Family Jewels", were kept close to the Agency's chest until an article by Seymour Hersh in the New York Times broke the news that the CIA had been involved in the assassination of foreign leaders and kept files on some seven thousand American citizens involved in the peace movement (Operation CHAOS). Congress investigated the CIA in the Senate through the Church committee, named after Chairman Frank Church (D-Idaho) and in the House through the Pike committee, named after Chairman Otis Pike (D-N.Y.); and these investigations led to further embarrassing disclosures. Around the Christmas of 1974/5, another blow was struck by Congress when they blocked covert intervention in Angola.
The CIA was subsequently prohibited from assassinating foreign leaders. Further, the prohibition against domestic spying, which had always been prohibited by the CIA charter, was again to be enforced, with the FBI having sole responsibility for domestic investigation of US citizens.
The FBI had plenty of its own dirty laundry turned up by the Church Committee.
Why go through all this again? We *know* that if you grant unnecessary powers and simply trust that they will not be abused, they *will* be abused. Why on earth did we allow PATRIOT through?
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.