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*?
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..
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.
Kids looking at pr0n shouldn't be an issue. They can't buy pr0n, so it's easy to tell them to whack off in someone else's trailer. The only pr0n surfer I had at my rural library is a kid, so it was easy to get him to stop.
:(
Now adults technically have a right to look at pr0n over at the Library, which baffles me. I am a big advocate of getting recessed monitor desks. They're the perfect solution. Patrons can look at whatever they want to on the terminals, other patrons and staff can't. Unfortunately, they run like $500 a piece, which tends to be cost prohibitive.
I have an idea that will save $3.6M/year...can you guess what it is?
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.
and overreacting.
Two officers did something that stepped over their job description. The situation was handled by superiors. I know it is vogue on Slashdot to "rail against the man", but "the man" dealt with the situation.
So now, we can get back to our God given right to wack off in public.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
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
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.
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.
Actually, these are county level. If you're from outside the US, that's a further subdivision within a state.
After 9/11, pretty much every state got some homeland security/anti-terror stuff going (my freshly-retired aunt worked for the state I grew up in, and I think wound up with ties to their anti-terror folks, since she dealt with things terrorists like, such as laundered money), and funding for "homeland security" has been doled out down to the lowest levels of government (where it's been spent on some truly weird stuff).
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
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.
"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.
Then you've no right to read religious literature, sci-fi, classics, non-fiction, browse slashdot or check your email at the library using public taxes either. If you get to prohibt someone from browsing porn, shouldn't they get to prohibit you from doing your favourite library activity too? Maybe they really don't like the idea of their taxes being used to supply you with access to 'The Satanic Verses' or 'The Communist Manifesto', and would much rather you paid for those activities out of your own pocket and conducted them at home, where children wouldn't be corrupted by your religious or political interests.
I suspect you'd like it a lot less, being told what rights you don't have, than hearing about what rights they do have.
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
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
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
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
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."
"Is the real problem the law, homeland security or just the people in the position?"
The real problem, in my immodest opinion is the people of the U.S. who have no sense of history. The creation of secretive (how many agents are there - what exactly do they do?) police agencies, with broad-reaching, and vaguely defined powers has, historically, never been a good thing for the populace. I repeat, never.
This is not about a couple of bad eggs. Their abuse of power is not at all inconsistant with the framework they operate in. They are not the disease - they are a symptom of the disease and are by no means unique.
The fact that we are so ignorant of this is sometimes blamed on the government who educated us to be sheep. I don't buy it. So far, at least, basic history is available to most of our citizens. We can all do this - and should - At least, until the men in uniforms come to the library to take the history books off of the shelves.
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!
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.
"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
(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!
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...
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.
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.
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?
If she had shown Justin Timberlake's nipple, though... now that would definitely have been obscene.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
... 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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Jefferson wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which is not only the direct model for the religious clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution, it is the prototype of all modern religious liberty guarantees -- the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the constitutions of countless other nations, etc. Jefferson is the single most important thinker and writer in the past 500 years on the topic of religion and government. The phrase "separation of church and state" is the phrase he used to describe the essence of his policy, and it is the phrase we continue to use to describe that same policy.
It only prohibits the Federal Government from abridging the freedom of speech. Local state authorites are not Congress. It only prohibits Congress
The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868. You really need to pick up a few books on the Constitution and US history, your understanding of both is lacking, and it affects your understanding of your right as a citizen and human being.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
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.
Courts do not ignore the free exercise clause. There's plenty of cases involving it. Perhaps there are fewer cases on it due to fewer facts giving rise to it (though I don't know their relative proportions) but that still isn't something to blame courts about. There aren't many Third Amendment cases either, but only because the government's been pretty good about that one.
Also, you need to read Marsh v. Chambers and the dissent. Basically, the Court made an exception for that situation, and that situation alone. Schools don't get treated like Congress. And if they were treated alike, the dissent indicates that Congress et al would have to stop.
Of course, students may pray all they like, and no one can stop them. But they also have to be non-disruptive and attend to their responsibilities. And the school itself cannot promote prayer or lead the students in it, which is what your typical establishment clause case for schools is about.
-- 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.