>"Amendment II > > A well regulated militia, being >necessary to the security of a free state, the >right of the people to keep and bear arms, >shall not be infringed."
>Note: A _WELL_ _REGULATED_ _MILITIA_, >[in its function of] being >necessary to the security of a free state, >[confers] the right of the people >to keep and bear arms...
I hate to touch this because it is rather off topic, but one sided views like the two previous bother me. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not really one on of the 2 major sides on the gun control issue, but I'm going to lay down what both sides seem to miss. Ok, taking the previous clarification, let us focus on the "[confers]", which could also be read as "[which is]". The most recent court decision regarding what the definition of "militia" is was US vs. Miller(1939). Quoting from that I have 2 excerpts. Firstly, what gun advocates use: "These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense..." Secondly, what gun control advocates use: "..the 2nd amendment does not grant the right to bear arms that do not have some reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia." (By the way I don't want to hear about the 1916 ruling stating that the militia is the National Guard, as the quoted ruling came later and therefore overrides the previous) Ok, how about we look at the larger picture now. "A well regulated Militia [regulated being the key word], being necessary to the security of a free State [because guns were controled by Britain from whence the founding fathers came from and they did not want the oppression there duplicated], the right of the people to keep and bear Arms[the people being key here], shall not be infringed[this ones pretty straght forward]." People *HAVE* the right to keep arms, however, the government *HAS* the right to "regulate" them. If you disagree with this don't bitch about it here, change the Bill of Rights. How on earth do you people advocate freedoms of this that and the other and advocate restricting the bottom line if and when oppression happens? On another note how do people argue unrestriced gun use when the nature of the beast is so destructive? It continues to baffle me how this is so misinterpreted by both sides when the truth is right there. Either side may not agree with me, but the courts do, as do quotes by the founding fathers (which are beyond the scope of this post to list).
>So for the 150th time, if the majority of people want it that way, what's the big deal?
Quite simply because the constitution was made, partly, to protect the minority from the majority.
Re:Hundreds of lunar and solar eclipses since Bibl
on
Total Lunar Eclipse
·
· Score: 1
Good question. Traditional Christianity has a hard time answering this question (I have asked it also). Not that I'm against Christianity (I'm actually Christian myself), I just don't subscribe to "mainstream" beliefs. But I just thought I would tell you that that is an excellent question.
Hrmmm, well I read you later post first and answered it before I noticed you had posted twice. At any rate, I tire of debating this whole issue. All you had to say what that you are an anarchist. Fine, we will never see eye to eye, suffice it to say I don't agree with you, and if you are an anarchist there is not much I can say on this issue to get you to see my side. We could debate government vs. anarchy as that seems to be the real issue here, but honestly I don't think it's worth it at this point.
>In essense you are saying "please take it away >because I enjoy it too much and I feel bad about >enjoying it", at least that is what I am taking >away from your statments.
I understand how you might see it that way. The thing of it is, is that my religious (and personal) beliefs say that it is bad. I understand that those are just *my* beliefs. I am not trying to ban porn, as I agree wholeheartedly that that would be a violation of first amendment rights. I am trying to keep the US a place where I can raise my kids, and yes I do have the right to dictate what they can and can't see until they become 18.
>Just about any subject touches someone somewhere >at a personal level, and can cause conflict.
Sure, absolutely. However, there is a difference between being just offensive, like say some literature that goes against my religion, and being violated, as I feel when I see porn against my will. All I am saying is that please keep the stuff that violates me and my religious rights from out in the open (like say a separate room, you know how they have in the video stores). Surely the founding fathers never meant free speech to violate people, offend sure, but violate? You would need a pretty strong argument to win that one. As numerous others have said throughout the ages freedoms are fine until you violate the rights of another. There needs to be a balance in just the first amendment alone. I understand that "violation" is very subjective but then again when you deal with a *huge* gray area like personal rights, when you think about it, what isn't subjective?
>As such I can certainly understand why you might >want to make rules...rules like sexuality and fun >in general is somehow wrong.
Actually, I believe sexuality is perfectly fine as long as it's not abused. I also believe that fun is fine (gosh). See, I believe in moderation. That's entirely where I come from. Without balance for the whole you get some seriously screwed up stuff, at least the way it is right now. But these are just my beliefs. Just wanted to let you know where I was coming from.
>However, we all have a brain, and we all have to >deal with the quirks of our own. It is kind of >silly to expect the rest of the world to conform >to your version of reality.
I'm not quite understanding this. All rules(laws) are rules that conform to someones version of reality. Are you saying there should be *no* rules? I honestly don't think you believe this but that's what it's sounding like.
>No human being has ever been harmed by seeing a >human body.
You may see it that way, but from your perspective that's completely understandable. From personal experience however, I disagree. It's very possible that I have seen more porn than you have. The first of it being at a young age. I can tell you that porn is very addictive and porn does not exactly blend with my personal beliefs. This leaves me with a personal conflict that would not be nearly as bad I feel if I had never been shown porn in the first place. Thus according to my beliefs seeing a naked human body is a very dangerous thing. There may be no evidence, but to anyone like me it's pretty much a no brainer.
Let me explain something to you. I thought I was clear about this in my previous posts but either I wasn't or you are refusing to see it. When you place pornographic material out in the open, in plain sight, where I can see it you are violating my rights. Let me say that again, *you* are violating *my* rights. My personal rights, my religious rights, and, if you show it to my kids, my kids rights which in turn brings it back to my rights in raising my kids again. I have tried to view this issue from both sides, which is why I think compromise is the best answer, but you on the other hand refuse to, or at least your arguments would imply this. I seem to detect an air of hostility towards religion, I could be wrong. In either case, I hate to break this to you but the US was founded by religious people. In the first amendment, freedom of religion comes before freedom of speech. Also in analyzing *your* arguments I have found that those same arguments about the freedom of speech can be applied to the freedom of religion. You start infringing on religion here, you start infringing on it there and where does it stop? Let me also explain something else to you. You don't have absolute freedom of speech, you never have had it. When this country was founded the people then never had absolute freedom of speech. Let me tell you why. When you have absolute freedom of anything you get dangerously close to anarchy. You say, I start infringing on rights and we get close to a police state. On either extreme its a bad thing. Extremism is often wrong and such is also the case here. I offer again, compromise?
>...The problem is that you are asking PUBLIC >libraries to enforce the "decency standards" of >a subset of the population.
Ok, two questions. First, what is the difference between libraries filtering porn for children and people walking around naked in public? I don't know maybe you have a problem with lewdness laws too. But couldn't you argue that freedom of speech is being infringed upon? I personally do not see a whole lot of difference. Both have to do with common decency. In fact, based on that, one could make a case for getting rid of porn outright in the library, not that I'm going there. Second, do you think it is ok then for children to see pornographic material? If you do then we obviously have a fundamental difference of opinion and will probably never see eye to eye on a great many topics.
>Seriously, I ask again, what is porn? How is it >defined? Where do you draw the line between >"socially acceptable" and "Unacceptable". Who >gets to make the determination? There is no >objective way to draw a line.
That's the whole point of an *open* source blacklist. The 'who' you are referring to would not be a single entity. Honestly though I don't think there will be much debate over what *children* should not be able to see.
>Should I not be allowed to sit at the library >and read the kama sutra for fear that some child >will look over my shoulder and see explicit >sexual drawings? What about the FACt that there >is nothing stopping that same child from going to >the library and picking up or even taking out a >copy of said book.
Ok, there is a difference between sitting down and reading a book, most likely in a corner, as a lot of libraries seem to have chairs against walls and corners where the pages of the book are facing you, and viewing material on a computer screen facing out where the rest of the world can see. There is also the fact that in order to read a book you were reading the child would have to be rude and nosy in which case most people would notice that someone was being rude and nosy (It bugs me when people read over my shoulder) and most decent people would realize there was a child there and close the book. As far as preventing a child from checking out the same book... There is a difference between being shown something and seeking something out. Most children aren't exactly aware of the Kama Sutra. You keep going back to this line between art and porn, no one, at least not me, is talking about banning David or "Sex". People are talking about protecting children from internet porn at the library. And IMO it's fairly easy to distinguish between what a child should see and what a child should not see. You keep sending the issue off into these extremes that no one is talking about. You keep trying to imply that if we restrict children from viewing porn in the library somehow art is going to get banned for everyone. I understand that you have to be careful about free speech as it sets possibly dangerous precedent but we are talking about a simple issue here. Like I said earlier in this post if you feel that children viewing porn is perfectly fine then we have a fundamental difference of opinion and we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
>Well, sheltering a child from anything is >forcing them to "grow up ignorant".
Umm, bullshit? All information is definitely not created equal. I really don't think you are going to take a brilliant, educated person, who doesn't happen to know the first thing about porn, and call him ignorant. Ignorant about porn perhaps, but not ignorant in general. And it is the general sense of the word I was talking about and I think you know that. If you want to twist the word 'protect' into 'shelter' then I guess that's your right. But might I remind you we are talking about children here not adults, children.
>You are advocating that the government be >employed to draw the line in the sand. You >are advocating that the government be the ones >who decide where the line gets drawn.
Actually no I'm not, please re-read my previous post. I am advocating that the government be employed to merely say that there is a line to be drawn. The original intent of this entire slashdot article was to talk about an open source blacklist was it not? If the blacklist is open source, I'm sure there will be many groups contributing their ideas, most, if not all, not related to the government.
>I am sorry, but that "Compromise" is a win for >censorship, not a real compromise.
I will now take a step back and try to look at this from an entirely objective angle. Ok, compromising means that when there are two divergent and conflicting points of view relating to a decision, both sides give some and both sides take some. The view of the religious is that porn should not have to be dealt with at all when trying to raise a child. The view of the free speech people is that no speech or expression should be inhibited. Now when viewing the library situation we have the religious saying that porn should be banned from libraries and the free speech people saying porn should not be banned in libraries. Then there is me saying that porn should not be viewed out in the open where children can see it and should not be made accessible to them on any computers they have access to. Do you see where both sides give and both sides take? I apologize for not making my view more clear I should have done a better job.
>...It is unacceptable to me to have the government >makeing decisions on what is art and what is >porn. It is unacceptable to me to have them >deciding what is "acceptable" and what is >"indecent".
>There is overlap and that is the problem. My >problem is not with banning porn viewing in >public per se, but with asking the government >to set standards.
I don't think that the issue here is asking the government to set standards other than to say certain things are innapropriate to view in public, specifically at the library. Wasn't the whole issue about open sourcing the blacklist?
>...If parents want to shelter their children >from information, then they should not allow >them to go to where that information is...at >the library.
I'm sorry but I have to strongly disagree here. I'm not sure you understand what you are saying here. Libraries are more or less the place you go to research information. If my kid has a research project due at school, or perhaps wants to read recreationally, or maybe is just curious, I have to deny him access to information? Religious kids will be forced to grow up ignorant? Do you understand the ramifications of such a situation? Basically in the long run you will destroy religion. Let me say that again, you will destroy religion... as most religious people will either be subjected to things against their beliefs or else be ignorant. I think thats about the last thing we need, religious zealots who are not just fanatical but ignorant to boot. Like I said earlier, there is overlap and you are advocating a one sided victory while I am advocating a compromise.
I agree mostly with what you have to say here. Perhaps I needed to be a little more clear with what I was trying to say. It is true that church and state need to be separated, which in a nutshell sums up the first part of your argument am I right? However, when I say impressionable children should not be subjected to things their religious(or otherwise) parents do not want them to see, one key point must be considered. The younger a child is, the more he or she doesn't know, the more innocent he or she is. Along those lines, if someone out in the open is browsing porn in a public place (such as a library) how is the child going to know that, according to the parents beliefs, it is wrong to view such things? I understand that the parent should educate the child on the morality of the subject, but when I have children someday, I don't plan on giving the birds and bees talk until the child is mature enough to handle it. Therefore as a future parent I would feel that the rights of any child I had were being infringed upon by allowing porn to be viewed in libraries (at least out in the open), not to mention my own rights. I certainly see the danger of supressing any form of speech, expression, etc. but do you see the dillemma here? As far as answering the question of what about the Muslim child who picks up a Bible, the parents have every right to forbid him to read until he becomes an adult. On the same note they have every right to prevent the child from viewing porn. The mistake that most people are making on this issue is they see it all as black and white; religion, speech, and separation of church and state as separate and distinct issues. The real truth of it is that there is not just a little, but definite overlap between all three and certain compromises *must* be made on all sides. For example, on the topic of religion, what if my beliefs were that the leader of another religious group was evil and needed to be beaten or killed? Could I do it and get away with it in the name of religion? Of course not. We have our freedoms as long as they don't infringe upon anothers freedoms. Likewise, have you ever gone into an airport security check and even mumbled the word 'gun' or 'bomb'? But the airport is usually owned by the city right? It's not private property yet you cannot say certain things and expect to proceed unmolested by the law. It is my opinion and the opinion of many other religious people that our rights are in fact being infringed upon when we enter a public place and find offensive things out in the open. Many of us also feel that our rights as religious parents, trying to raise children with ethics and morals related to our religions, are being infringed upon if our children have easy access to objectionable material. To argue the point about if I do not want my child seeing porn then don't send him or her to the library: why is it that porno cannot be shown on network television? Isn't that a violation of the freedom of speech? But why can't I just not turn on the television? But that's different some people might argue. Why? You see the entire issue as a clear cut case. Freedom of speech vs supression of freedom of speech. I see it as freedom of speech vs. freedom of religion. I'm not advocating suppression of speech just advocating a compromise.
>> So, I guess censorship is good, when it is >> implemented properly > >Here I disagree. Censorship litterally means >that some party gets to decide "What speech is >OK". I personally reject that idea totally. >NO person EVER has the right to decide what >speech is OK for me to hear (secrets wispered >into someones ear being excluded from "Speach" >as its a whole nother topic of privacy there) I realize what I'm about to say is not going to be popular and may be classified as flamebait given the content of many other previous posts, but since no one has brought this up yet I feel obligated. That out of the way... When many people think about what the United States was founded on they think about the topic at hand namely freedom of speech. What most people here appear to have forgotten is that the US was founded on the idea of freedom of religion just as much (if not more) as it was on the freedom of speech. Both of them are right there in the first amendment, with religion actually being mentioned before speech. Whether or not porn is right is completely missing the point. The issue at hand is protecting the young from seeing objectionable material. What most posters so far have failed to factor into their reasonings is that most of the people who do not wish the young to be subjected to porn do so because based on moral(religious) beliefs they feel that porn is evil and do not want their children exposed to it. (I'm not trying to alienate any athiests or agnostics that are anti-porn just pointing out the obvious) Not to mention the fact that many find it personally offensive themselves and would feel that their rights had been infringed upon if they were exposed to it unvoluntarily. Obviously, what we have here is a conflict between the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. Personally I am religious and find it disturbing that so many opinions are one sided towards the freedom of speech. Using a somewhat analagous scenario I hope I will illustrate a point. I love to speed, I hate the idea of wasting my time on the road when I could be somewhere faster. I also find that speed laws when applied to certain stretches of road are pointless. On the other hand I completely understand and respect those that feel speeding is dangerous and therefore evil. The point is, certain things (like governments in general) must be put in place to protect us from ourselves. I mean honestly if people are so bent on absolute freedom of speech, why not stop there? What about the absolute right to bear arms? (I'm not trying to open a can of worms with this one just pointing to a similar debate) While we're at it why not just go all the way and say what about absolute freedom? Hmmmmm...Sounds like anarchy to me which would actually result in much less than absolute freedom. See where I'm going with this? Don't get me wrong I'm not for most forms of censorship. But when dealing with an impressionable mind like a child's I feel that is has to be done if for no other reason than to protect the moral(religious) beliefs that citizens of the US are constitutionally free to practice. If you want to browse porn on the internet, fine, no one is talking about stopping you in the privacy of your own home. If you want to post porn on the internet, fine. But I'll be damned if I let you show porn to any kids I have in the future.
First off, if you are going to spew flames, be a man about it and don't do it as an AC. Second off, it's human nature to be sore losers, I really don't know what you were expecting. Thirdly, and this goes out to everyone, why are we even worrying about this? It tested 2 things. Personally, I use linux for a *whole* lot more than 2 things. Whether the benchmarks were correct or not (even though IMHO *all* benchmarks are subjective) is really not relevant to me. Lastly, I'm wondering if the khttpd was used and if not if a follow up test should be in order at a future date.
Slashdot Mirror
>"Amendment II
.the 2nd amendment does not grant the right to bear arms that do not have some reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia." (By the way I don't want to hear about the 1916 ruling stating that the militia is the National Guard, as the quoted ruling came later and therefore overrides the previous)
>
> A well regulated militia, being
>necessary to the security of a free state, the
>right of the people to keep and bear arms,
>shall not be infringed."
>Note: A _WELL_ _REGULATED_ _MILITIA_,
>[in its function of] being
>necessary to the security of a free state,
>[confers] the right of the people
>to keep and bear arms...
I hate to touch this because it is rather off topic, but one sided views like the two previous bother me. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not really one on of the 2 major sides on the gun control issue, but I'm going to lay down what both sides seem to miss.
Ok, taking the previous clarification, let us focus on the "[confers]", which could also be read as "[which is]". The most recent court decision regarding what the definition of "militia" is was US vs. Miller(1939). Quoting from that I have 2 excerpts. Firstly, what gun advocates use: "These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense..." Secondly, what gun control advocates use: ".
Ok, how about we look at the larger picture now.
"A well regulated Militia [regulated being the key word], being necessary to the security of a free State [because guns were controled by Britain from whence the founding fathers came from and they did not want the oppression there duplicated], the right of the people to keep and bear Arms[the people being key here], shall not be infringed[this ones pretty straght forward]." People *HAVE* the right to keep arms, however, the government *HAS* the right to "regulate" them. If you disagree with this don't bitch about it here, change the Bill of Rights. How on earth do you people advocate freedoms of this that and the other and advocate restricting the bottom line if and when oppression happens? On another note how do people argue unrestriced gun use when the nature of the beast is so destructive? It continues to baffle me how this is so misinterpreted by both sides when the truth is right there. Either side may not agree with me, but the courts do, as do quotes by the founding fathers (which are beyond the scope of this post to list).
>So for the 150th time, if the majority of people want it that way, what's the big deal?
Quite simply because the constitution was made, partly, to protect the minority from the majority.
Good question. Traditional Christianity has a hard time answering this question (I have asked it also). Not that I'm against Christianity (I'm actually Christian myself), I just don't subscribe to "mainstream" beliefs. But I just thought I would tell you that that is an excellent question.
Hrmmm, well I read you later post first and answered it before I noticed you had posted twice. At any rate, I tire of debating this whole issue. All you had to say what that you are an anarchist. Fine, we will never see eye to eye, suffice it to say I don't agree with you, and if you are an anarchist there is not much I can say on this issue to get you to see my side. We could debate government vs. anarchy as that seems to be the real issue here, but honestly I don't think it's worth it at this point.
>In essense you are saying "please take it away
>because I enjoy it too much and I feel bad about
>enjoying it", at least that is what I am taking
>away from your statments.
I understand how you might see it that way. The thing of it is, is that my religious (and personal) beliefs say that it is bad. I understand that those are just *my* beliefs. I am not trying to ban porn, as I agree wholeheartedly that that would be a violation of first amendment rights. I am trying to keep the US a place where I can raise my kids, and yes I do have the right to dictate what they can and can't see until they become 18.
>Just about any subject touches someone somewhere
>at a personal level, and can cause conflict.
Sure, absolutely. However, there is a difference between being just offensive, like say some literature that goes against my religion, and being violated, as I feel when I see porn against my will. All I am saying is that please keep the stuff that violates me and my religious rights from out in the open (like say a separate room, you know how they have in the video stores). Surely the founding fathers never meant free speech to violate people, offend sure, but violate? You would need a pretty strong argument to win that one. As numerous others have said throughout the ages freedoms are fine until you violate the rights of another. There needs to be a balance in just the first amendment alone. I understand that "violation" is very subjective but then again when you deal with a *huge* gray area like personal rights, when you think about it, what isn't subjective?
>As such I can certainly understand why you might
>want to make rules...rules like sexuality and fun
>in general is somehow wrong.
Actually, I believe sexuality is perfectly fine as long as it's not abused. I also believe that fun is fine (gosh). See, I believe in moderation. That's entirely where I come from. Without balance for the whole you get some seriously screwed up stuff, at least the way it is right now. But these are just my beliefs. Just wanted to let you know where I was coming from.
>However, we all have a brain, and we all have to
>deal with the quirks of our own. It is kind of
>silly to expect the rest of the world to conform
>to your version of reality.
I'm not quite understanding this. All rules(laws) are rules that conform to someones version of reality. Are you saying there should be *no* rules? I honestly don't think you believe this but that's what it's sounding like.
>No human being has ever been harmed by seeing a
>human body.
You may see it that way, but from your perspective that's completely understandable. From personal experience however, I disagree. It's very possible that I have seen more porn than you have. The first of it being at a young age. I can tell you that porn is very addictive and porn does not exactly blend with my personal beliefs. This leaves me with a personal conflict that would not be nearly as bad I feel if I had never been shown porn in the first place. Thus according to my beliefs seeing a naked human body is a very dangerous thing. There may be no evidence, but to anyone like me it's pretty much a no brainer.
Let me explain something to you. I thought I was clear about this in my previous posts but either I wasn't or you are refusing to see it. When you place pornographic material out in the open, in plain sight, where I can see it you are violating my rights. Let me say that again, *you* are violating *my* rights. My personal rights, my religious rights, and, if you show it to my kids, my kids rights which in turn brings it back to my rights in raising my kids again. I have tried to view this issue from both sides, which is why I think compromise is the best answer, but you on the other hand refuse to, or at least your arguments would imply this. I seem to detect an air of hostility towards religion, I could be wrong. In either case, I hate to break this to you but the US was founded by religious people. In the first amendment, freedom of religion comes before freedom of speech. Also in analyzing *your* arguments I have found that those same arguments about the freedom of speech can be applied to the freedom of religion. You start infringing on religion here, you start infringing on it there and where does it stop? Let me also explain something else to you. You don't have absolute freedom of speech, you never have had it. When this country was founded the people then never had absolute freedom of speech. Let me tell you why. When you have absolute freedom of anything you get dangerously close to anarchy. You say, I start infringing on rights and we get close to a police state. On either extreme its a bad thing. Extremism is often wrong and such is also the case here. I offer again, compromise?
>...The problem is that you are asking PUBLIC
>libraries to enforce the "decency standards" of
>a subset of the population.
Ok, two questions. First, what is the difference between libraries filtering porn for children and people walking around naked in public? I don't know maybe you have a problem with lewdness laws too. But couldn't you argue that freedom of speech is being infringed upon? I personally do not see a whole lot of difference. Both have to do with common decency. In fact, based on that, one could make a case for getting rid of porn outright in the library, not that I'm going there. Second, do you think it is ok then for children to see pornographic material? If you do then we obviously have a fundamental difference of opinion and will probably never see eye to eye on a great many topics.
>Seriously, I ask again, what is porn? How is it
>defined? Where do you draw the line between
>"socially acceptable" and "Unacceptable". Who
>gets to make the determination? There is no
>objective way to draw a line.
That's the whole point of an *open* source blacklist. The 'who' you are referring to would not be a single entity. Honestly though I don't think there will be much debate over what *children* should not be able to see.
>Should I not be allowed to sit at the library
>and read the kama sutra for fear that some child
>will look over my shoulder and see explicit
>sexual drawings? What about the FACt that there
>is nothing stopping that same child from going to
>the library and picking up or even taking out a
>copy of said book.
Ok, there is a difference between sitting down and reading a book, most likely in a corner, as a lot of libraries seem to have chairs against walls and corners where the pages of the book are facing you, and viewing material on a computer screen facing out where the rest of the world can see. There is also the fact that in order to read a book you were reading the child would have to be rude and nosy in which case most people would notice that someone was being rude and nosy (It bugs me when people read over my shoulder) and most decent people would realize there was a child there and close the book. As far as preventing a child from checking out the same book... There is a difference between being shown something and seeking something out. Most children aren't exactly aware of the Kama Sutra. You keep going back to this line between art and porn, no one, at least not me, is talking about banning David or "Sex". People are talking about protecting children from internet porn at the library. And IMO it's fairly easy to distinguish between what a child should see and what a child should not see. You keep sending the issue off into these extremes that no one is talking about. You keep trying to imply that if we restrict children from viewing porn in the library somehow art is going to get banned for everyone. I understand that you have to be careful about free speech as it sets possibly dangerous precedent but we are talking about a simple issue here. Like I said earlier in this post if you feel that children viewing porn is perfectly fine then we have a fundamental difference of opinion and we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
>Well, sheltering a child from anything is
>forcing them to "grow up ignorant".
Umm, bullshit? All information is definitely not created equal. I really don't think you are going to take a brilliant, educated person, who doesn't happen to know the first thing about porn, and call him ignorant. Ignorant about porn perhaps, but not ignorant in general. And it is the general sense of the word I was talking about and I think you know that. If you want to twist the word 'protect' into 'shelter' then I guess that's your right. But might I remind you we are talking about children here not adults, children.
>You are advocating that the government be
>employed to draw the line in the sand. You
>are advocating that the government be the ones
>who decide where the line gets drawn.
Actually no I'm not, please re-read my previous post. I am advocating that the government be employed to merely say that there is a line to be drawn. The original intent of this entire slashdot article was to talk about an open source blacklist was it not? If the blacklist is open source, I'm sure there will be many groups contributing their ideas, most, if not all, not related to the government.
>I am sorry, but that "Compromise" is a win for
>censorship, not a real compromise.
I will now take a step back and try to look at this from an entirely objective angle. Ok, compromising means that when there are two divergent and conflicting points of view relating to a decision, both sides give some and both sides take some. The view of the religious is that porn should not have to be dealt with at all when trying to raise a child. The view of the free speech people is that no speech or expression should be inhibited. Now when viewing the library situation we have the religious saying that porn should be banned from libraries and the free speech people saying porn should not be banned in libraries. Then there is me saying that porn should not be viewed out in the open where children can see it and should not be made accessible to them on any computers they have access to. Do you see where both sides give and both sides take? I apologize for not making my view more clear I should have done a better job.
>...It is unacceptable to me to have the government
>makeing decisions on what is art and what is
>porn. It is unacceptable to me to have them
>deciding what is "acceptable" and what is
>"indecent".
It is unacceptable to me too.
>There is overlap and that is the problem. My
>problem is not with banning porn viewing in
>public per se, but with asking the government
>to set standards.
I don't think that the issue here is asking the government to set standards other than to say certain things are innapropriate to view in public, specifically at the library. Wasn't the whole issue about open sourcing the blacklist?
>...If parents want to shelter their children
>from information, then they should not allow
>them to go to where that information is...at
>the library.
I'm sorry but I have to strongly disagree here. I'm not sure you understand what you are saying here. Libraries are more or less the place you go to research information. If my kid has a research project due at school, or perhaps wants to read recreationally, or maybe is just curious, I have to deny him access to information? Religious kids will be forced to grow up ignorant? Do you understand the ramifications of such a situation? Basically in the long run you will destroy religion. Let me say that again, you will destroy religion... as most religious people will either be subjected to things against their beliefs or else be ignorant. I think thats about the last thing we need, religious zealots who are not just fanatical but ignorant to boot. Like I said earlier, there is overlap and you are advocating a one sided victory while I am advocating a compromise.
I agree mostly with what you have to say here. Perhaps I needed to be a little more clear with what I was trying to say. It is true that church and state need to be separated, which in a nutshell sums up the first part of your argument am I right? However, when I say impressionable children should not be subjected to things their religious(or otherwise) parents do not want them to see, one key point must be considered. The younger a child is, the more he or she doesn't know, the more innocent he or she is. Along those lines, if someone out in the open is browsing porn in a public place (such as a library) how is the child going to know that, according to the parents beliefs, it is wrong to view such things? I understand that the parent should educate the child on the morality of the subject, but when I have children someday, I don't plan on giving the birds and bees talk until the child is mature enough to handle it. Therefore as a future parent I would feel that the rights of any child I had were being infringed upon by allowing porn to be viewed in libraries (at least out in the open), not to mention my own rights. I certainly see the danger of supressing any form of speech, expression, etc. but do you see the dillemma here? As far as answering the question of what about the Muslim child who picks up a Bible, the parents have every right to forbid him to read until he becomes an adult. On the same note they have every right to prevent the child from viewing porn. The mistake that most people are making on this issue is they see it all as black and white; religion, speech, and separation of church and state as separate and distinct issues. The real truth of it is that there is not just a little, but definite overlap between all three and certain compromises *must* be made on all sides. For example, on the topic of religion, what if my beliefs were that the leader of another religious group was evil and needed to be beaten or killed? Could I do it and get away with it in the name of religion? Of course not. We have our freedoms as long as they don't infringe upon anothers freedoms. Likewise, have you ever gone into an airport security check and even mumbled the word 'gun' or 'bomb'? But the airport is usually owned by the city right? It's not private property yet you cannot say certain things and expect to proceed unmolested by the law. It is my opinion and the opinion of many other religious people that our rights are in fact being infringed upon when we enter a public place and find offensive things out in the open. Many of us also feel that our rights as religious parents, trying to raise children with ethics and morals related to our religions, are being infringed upon if our children have easy access to objectionable material. To argue the point about if I do not want my child seeing porn then don't send him or her to the library: why is it that porno cannot be shown on network television? Isn't that a violation of the freedom of speech? But why can't I just not turn on the television? But that's different some people might argue. Why? You see the entire issue as a clear cut case. Freedom of speech vs supression of freedom of speech. I see it as freedom of speech vs. freedom of religion. I'm not advocating suppression of speech just advocating a compromise.
>> So, I guess censorship is good, when it is >> implemented properly > >Here I disagree. Censorship litterally means >that some party gets to decide "What speech is >OK". I personally reject that idea totally. >NO person EVER has the right to decide what >speech is OK for me to hear (secrets wispered >into someones ear being excluded from "Speach" >as its a whole nother topic of privacy there) I realize what I'm about to say is not going to be popular and may be classified as flamebait given the content of many other previous posts, but since no one has brought this up yet I feel obligated. That out of the way... When many people think about what the United States was founded on they think about the topic at hand namely freedom of speech. What most people here appear to have forgotten is that the US was founded on the idea of freedom of religion just as much (if not more) as it was on the freedom of speech. Both of them are right there in the first amendment, with religion actually being mentioned before speech. Whether or not porn is right is completely missing the point. The issue at hand is protecting the young from seeing objectionable material. What most posters so far have failed to factor into their reasonings is that most of the people who do not wish the young to be subjected to porn do so because based on moral(religious) beliefs they feel that porn is evil and do not want their children exposed to it. (I'm not trying to alienate any athiests or agnostics that are anti-porn just pointing out the obvious) Not to mention the fact that many find it personally offensive themselves and would feel that their rights had been infringed upon if they were exposed to it unvoluntarily. Obviously, what we have here is a conflict between the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. Personally I am religious and find it disturbing that so many opinions are one sided towards the freedom of speech. Using a somewhat analagous scenario I hope I will illustrate a point. I love to speed, I hate the idea of wasting my time on the road when I could be somewhere faster. I also find that speed laws when applied to certain stretches of road are pointless. On the other hand I completely understand and respect those that feel speeding is dangerous and therefore evil. The point is, certain things (like governments in general) must be put in place to protect us from ourselves. I mean honestly if people are so bent on absolute freedom of speech, why not stop there? What about the absolute right to bear arms? (I'm not trying to open a can of worms with this one just pointing to a similar debate) While we're at it why not just go all the way and say what about absolute freedom? Hmmmmm...Sounds like anarchy to me which would actually result in much less than absolute freedom. See where I'm going with this? Don't get me wrong I'm not for most forms of censorship. But when dealing with an impressionable mind like a child's I feel that is has to be done if for no other reason than to protect the moral(religious) beliefs that citizens of the US are constitutionally free to practice. If you want to browse porn on the internet, fine, no one is talking about stopping you in the privacy of your own home. If you want to post porn on the internet, fine. But I'll be damned if I let you show porn to any kids I have in the future.
First off, if you are going to spew flames, be a man about it and don't do it as an AC. Second off, it's human nature to be sore losers, I really don't know what you were expecting. Thirdly, and this goes out to everyone, why are we even worrying about this? It tested 2 things. Personally, I use linux for a *whole* lot more than 2 things. Whether the benchmarks were correct or not (even though IMHO *all* benchmarks are subjective) is really not relevant to me. Lastly, I'm wondering if the khttpd was used and if not if a follow up test should be in order at a future date.
I personally pronounce it LIN-ucks because IMHO it's just easier to say. Therefore in the tradition of tab completions......