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."
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.
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.
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.
And Adults do have the right to look at porn
There is no right that adults get to look at porn on tax payer expense. There is a huge difference between what you do on your own and what you do with funding from the gov't... sorry.
Now, this isn't to say we should pass a law prohibiting. That is another debate. Hoever, I get so damn tired of being told what rights others have, when it comes out of my pocket.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
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.
I don't think the Republicans are Republicans any more. A few years ago I heard Rush Limbaugh say that fiscal conservancy was liberal value. The incubent Republicans have yet to provide more liberty, less government involvement, and fiscal conservancy. They have grown the government and have begun to insert endiscopes up our collective butts.
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.
The problem can't be just blamed on the extremists.
If moderate Christians would stand up and tell Jerry Falwell to shove his bigotted ideas up his ass, Christians wouldn't have such an increasingly bad reputation. If moderate Muslims would *actively* work against the extremist mullahs (I'm not just talking about issuing press statements), then Muslims wouldn't have such an increasingly bad reputation.
The same can be said for Republicans, Democrats, and Cthulus -- the uneducated masses of voters that give the extremists the power are every bit as much to blame as the extremists themselves.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Why is there any reason to believe that the Libertarian candidates, having said what they needed to get elected, won't also immediately go back on their promises?
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
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.
(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!
The point is, they are appointed by the president. He's far more likely to pick someone who calls himself a democrat, but has more republican leanings, than the other way around. More than one politician has switched teams before, and lots of others lean towards the other parties.
Either way, they shouldn't be wearing "Homeland Security" props.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
However, I vote for them.
Which ought to tell you how I view the other parties, which are trying to destroy the country in a different way, and having a lot more success at it. When the Libertarians shows up to take the libraries away, we'd actually be annoyed and get rid of them, unlike the other parties who can hand money out to big businesses left and right and the media, which is owned by said big businesses, just yawns.
Although I admit if I had had a chance to get Bush out of office in 2004, I would have voted for Kerry. I probably would have voted for Dan Quayle or a trained marmoset or a lump of coal if they had had a chance of winning against Bush.
The problem there isn't the Republican party, which I, in theory, agree with more often than not. The problem there is the Cult of the Neocon that's risen in the past six years, and the fact the GOP leadership got all the GOP Senators rowing in whatever direction they want, which is fine when they are actually doing something useful, but is not a good thing right now.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
... 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?
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."
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.
No matter who wants to take away the liberties, someone seems to be succeeding... Just to clarify, I only visit the States, and therefore my view of things is a bit different. A decade ago Russia was a country I felt uneasy to enter, since 1) you could not be sure if you get in 2) you could not be sure if you get out, presuming you first got in. And for example losing your passport while visiting would have been a real scare. Visiting States: well, life was good. Now the table has turned, and I am sure I could easily cope in Russia if I lost my papers. As for the land of the free, I really would not want to be a non-citizen without the proper paperwork. And the border situation has flipped accordingly.
Not likely. The GOP's current strength comes from its marriage to fundamentalism and moralizing christians. The more puritanical the US becomes, the stronger the republican vote. For the republicans to lose, the appeal of puritanism would have to decline in the US. But with all the current religious fervor over "intelligent design", "stem cells", "fags", etc. the old farts will continue to wield power. If anything I expect support to increase.
The american mullahs are in power.
Consider how many people voted for bush for the sole reason that he opposed gay marriage. iraq war? foreign policy? domestic policy? taxes? etc. nope. the only thing that matterd to them was a prez who was against homos.
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
Has anyone ever read the constitution?
Yes, but apparently not you. You have to read the WHOLE thing, and that includes the various AMENDMENTS that CHANGE the meaning and application of various other parts of the Constitution. In particular the 14th Amednment means that the states and local governments are equally prohibited from violating the constitutional rights of citizens.
And really it was a bug or flaw in the Constitution prior to the 14th Amendment. That's why we ammend the Constitution - to fix bugs and flaws. It is an absolute ABOMINATION for you to suggest that only the Federal government should be prohibited from violoating our rights. It is an absolute ABOMINATION for you to suggest that state and local governments SHOULD be allowed to VIOLATE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
Go right ahead.... I want to hear you argue that state and local police government SHOULD be able to engage in warrantless searchs and seisures, argue that the 4th Amendment should only apply to Federal police. I want to hear you argue that state and local government SHOULD be able violate and deny our right to Religious Freedom.
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.
You are correct that the precise phrase "Seperation of church and state" is lifted from a Jefferson letter. Jefferson is reknown for his skill with words and coming up with exactly the right short beautiful phrase to represent a rich idea.
However the idea originates from Jesus Christ himself. Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's, render unto God that which is God. Jeasus himself addressed the difference between the Kingdom of Man and the Kingdom of God.
In a United States context, the idea of separation of church and state appears to have first taken root with Roger Williams, co-founder of Rhode Island in the 1600's. The idea then grew and was adouped as a founding principle by the Founding Fathers. In fact James Madison wrote extensively on the subject. You know, James Madison Founding Father. James Madison President of the United States. James Madison Father of the Constitution. James Madison Father of the Bill of Rights. James Madison Author of the First Amendment.
He wrote estensively on the subject of separation of church and state, and what it meant, and what constituted a violation of the First Amendment in relation to speration of chursh and state.
Madison referred to it many times, using phrases such as "perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters" and the "separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States".
Of course Madison's phrase "separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters" is far less catchy than Jefferson's "Separation of Church and State". We use Jefferson's phrase for the idea simply because he was such a skilled wordsmith.
The idea of Separation of Church and State was established as a Founding Principle of this nation by both the "rationalists" such as Jefferson and Madison who were wary of the currupting influence of religion upon government (and often wrote of that concern), AND by the evangelical Founding Fathers of various religious branches as well. Many religious groups had explicitly come to the States to flee the effects of religious influence upon government at home. They were excruciatingly aware of the effect of religion upon government and that it inherently produced oppression of minority religions. They delivberately di NOT establish a "Christian" government, because they well knew that that could and would inherently mean one particular sect of Christianity elevated by government above all other sects, and that that inherently constituted a violation against the Right to Religious Freedom and equality under the law of all other sects.
The author of the First Amendment was James Madison. He wrote extensively on the separ
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.