Posted on 03/05/2003 7:02:48 AM PST by forktail
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:35:41 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Libertarian? I'm not. So I'll just cut the philosphical argument short and say that we'll have to agree to disagree.
The only thing I'll question is your claim that the "US population" wants pornography. The soft and artistic Playboy type and the soft porn that you'll find on HBO or Showtime? Maybe. The hardcore stuff that we've both mentioned earlier in the thread? I doubt it. Indeed, that's how the government manages to get soccer moms and fathers to send pornographers to jail for obscenity. The people who like that sort of pornography are a subculture that makes up a fairly small fraction of the "US population". I suspect that a clear magjority Americans do not want to see women beaten to a pulp, people defecating on each other, or people having sex with animals. People only broadly support "pornography" because most nice people think of Playboy and not hardcover S&M when they hear "pornography". And all I'm really saying is that you should show people what you claim they support and see if their support is really as strong as you think it is.
And I guess this means you didn't read the section of the web site that I referened on prosecuting pornography, which defines the distinction between legal and illegal pornography, did you?
Ultimately, I'm not a libertarian becuase I realize that liberty isn't an end but a means to an end. Ultimately, the purpose of liberty is to provide a pleasant life and to free people from tyranny, it isn't to allow the the dregs of society to make life a living Hell for nice people, to abuse the misguided and ignorant, and to drag society down to an unsustaintably hostile level of social interaction. At that point, liberty actually becomes the tool that makes life unpleasant by creating a tyranny of the crass, since no man is an island. If that's what you are using liberty for, I have no use for it, just as I have no use for peace if it only serves to keep sadists like Saddam in power. Society should have no use for sadists no matter what skirts (freedom, peace, etc) they hide behind whether the sadist is a dictator who rapes and tortures his enemies or a pornographer that beats young women to a pulp.
Not so. Early in this discussion, you made it clear how you felt about child pornography (which was fair enough). Everyone draws a line somewhere between "no porn" and "anything goes". While I know you are concerned about the slippery slope, I think it is reasonable to draw that line somwhere between "no porn" and "anything (but children) goes". Indeed, I think the "CURBFHP" criteria and the (admittedly quirky) Cambria list are pretty good. Note that the government obscenity criteria is based on what they believe juries of reasonable people would prosecute as "obscene".
If Howard Stern has done nothing in his life he has taught us that _ALL_ strippers/porn stars come from extrememly bad/abusive homes. So I don't know what porn stars are telling you but anyone who thinks they are anything other than odd balls at best and depraved at worst is a silly person.
And I think this raises the critical issue surrounding the word "legal" that you use below -- consent. The number of emotionally and mentally maladjusted indivuals in the porn industry raises warning flags about how consentual a lot of pornography is. But once we consider torture, defecating in people's mouths, bestiality, and other degrading and humiliating acts that the targest clearly is not enjoying, I think full out warning bells should be going off. Submission to these things are not the consentual acts of a well adjusted individual. They are acts of coercion, deception, despiration, or fear. And, no, I don't think that's in the same class as a Playboy spread or even a straight hard core movie. Put another way, I don't think society has any more interest in allowing people to torture other people than we do to allow people to enslave other people. Indeed, it is notable that the targets of these pornographic movies are often called just that -- "slaves".
Two: You place FAR too great a trust in your government.
I've worked for state government -- in an enforcement role at one point, even. Trust me, I know the limits of goverment and how horrible it often works.
But government is a "necessary evil". Forget either one of those words and you'll either grant government too much or too little power. I do think government has some interest in protecting children from pornography. I also think that government has some interest in preventing people from torturing other people for the benefit of people who get turned on by it, in much the same way that we prohibit even the posession of child pornography because the chain of production ultimately leads back to a child being abused.
There are many things that our gov't should govern. Sex isn't one of them.
I'm not talking about sex. I'm talking about (A) the commercial production of pornographic material and (B) the unenjoyable abuse or even torture of people for the pleasure of others. I don't think you honestly confuse either of these with sex.
I don't want them involved in what I see or read as long as everyone involved is "legal." (And yes I do understand the duality of that statement.)
As I point out above, I think "legal" gets stretched once the "actor" isn't enjoying what is being done to them. You've got a limit (hence your "legal" qualifier). I simply think it is too permissive.
I want the govenrment to work for me. I pay them. I don't want them making any descions for me. I'll do that myself.
The government works for everyone and sometimes that means it stops you from doing things that you want to do. You seem to have no problem with the government making decisions for child pornographers and the people who would consume their products. No matter how you frame it, this isn't a binary "all" or "none" issue but a matter of where you draw your line. You are trying to tell me that I shouldn't draw a line, even though you do. The real question is where do we draw the line.
Which brings us around to the original thread. Libraries and Internet filters. I think we agree that having Porno in our libraries is a bad thing. Further I think we agree children should not have access to porn.
And that's because you are basically a decent person, which is why you are afraid of the government harassing you for no good reason. But there are people out there that aren't decent and they are the problem.
My point remains: Filtering does not work. It can't because everyone involved is trying to circumvent it. And people do.
By the measure that it must be 100% successful to be useful, no law would be useful. Rape laws don't stop rape. Murder laws don't stop murder. Why are they valuable? Because they reduce those things. I don't think anyone who understands the technology expects filters to be 100% effective. If they are even partially successful, though, they could reduce the problem.
If you want to stop people from getting pornography at the local library you need to actively tell them, "Don't do that!" And make there be reprecussions for breaking the rules. Being lilly livered and hoping some technology is going to save you from the evils you hate but are afraid to face is being dishonest to yourself and those you wish to regulate. You walk up to the child/teen/person and say, "You will not do that here." And YOU monitor them with humans.
And that's fine, too.
It is trivial to face all the monitors in one direction and have a HUMAN monitor in the room.
Not possible in every room but not a bad idea, in conjunction with a filter. The problem with having no filter is that it is so trivially easy to bring up porn that it will happen often. If the rules of frequently broken (like speed limits), the problem is that many children will still see it. This is like the argument that people don't need guns because they can always call the police. Calling the police is often too late. Telling someone to take an image off of the screen can similarly be too late if a room full of children have already seen the image.
And you bloody well don't give them access to port 119!
Sound advice. I was using the Usenet long before there was a web. It is a good thing that more people don't know about it. There is now enough garbage on it already. Ah, for the days before eternal September.
My friend works in a public library, and she says most people are not using computers for research. They're doing e-mail and surfing the web. What a waste of our money.
I think you already know the answers/arguments on this, so I'll be brief. Parents cannot supervise children 24/7, not when the radio, television, internet, even (in many places) the schools are all suspect. So the broad question is whether society is going to be child-friendly or child-hazardous. Since America kills a quarter of its children before birth, we already know the answer to that, don't we?
When I was growing up in the 50's and early 60's, society outside the home was, by and large, child-friendly. It supported parents. The schools were safe places. Television was safe. The radio was safe. Libraries were certainly safe. There was no internet, but had there been, it too would have been a safe zone. Newstands, including the racks at the grocery story checkout counters, didn't shout sex at you. I can recall the discussions along about in junior high, when some of the boys were discovering Playboy, about where you could get this mysterious magazine (under the counter at a couple of stores, and you had to ask for it).
A different world. People who wanted porn could get it, but it was an opt-in type of thing; you had to go looking just a bit. Now the public culture is sex, sex, sex 24/7, and parents basically have to put a bag over their kids heads and lock 'em up to avoid five and six year olds being barraged with sexual messages. Does anybody really think this is better?
Yes. My actual preference would be for libraries to use one of the filtering services that actually has humans that can review what is or isn't being blocked and can fix errors as they are noticed. In other words, if a librarian notices that a breast cancer site that looks legitimate is being blocked, they should have a place to send an appeal to open it up, if warranted.
Ultimately, the big issues here for me (beyond the side-track into the legality of porn) is that (A) a library is a public place, (B) children can be found in libraries, and (C) I don't think filters need to be perfect ot be useful. I ultimately agree that human monitors are required and it would be best if parents supervised their cildren. But given the number of children who aren't well supervised and the nature of the porn that can be easily brought up on the Internet, I think some blocking is warranted.
You have to refrain from searching for "hot naked teens". :p
Holy moly, Question, you're not following your screen name.
Porn is the biggest profit making business on the internet, bar none.
That said, why not arrange the library computers so that the ones kids can access have their screens facing the desk librarians?
But isn't that the crux of the problem?
Require that the librarians police it on the child accessible computers, As you said, there's no better filter than a human.
As for the adults, if they leave behind a sticky keyboard or expose others to nasty pictures on the monitor, withdraw their privileges.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.