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."
lesser of two evils, etc.
These situations will not improve until people learn to count higher than two.
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!
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.
"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.
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.