User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/3/2002 1:26:28 PM EDT
[#1]
The ACLU does for the rest of the Bill of Rights what (we hope) the NRA does for the Second Amendment - defend against each and every attempt to infringe on our Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights.
This is especially difficult to take when the individuals or groups being defended are slime, but remember - it isn't the slime the ACLU is defending, but [i]our rights[/i]. Now, if they'd get off their liberal asses and defend the Second Amendment as well.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2002 2:09:59 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: The ACLU does for the rest of the Bill of Rights what (we hope) the NRA does for the Second Amendment - defend against each and every attempt to infringe on our Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights. Now, if they'd get off their liberal asses and defend the Second Amendment as well.... We should be so lucky that the NRA would defend the 2nd as forcefully as the aclu defends the 1st. How many times have you known the aclu to 'compromise' on their interpretation of the 1st? To the aclu, the 1st means what it says it says...period. The aclu does not believe that the 2nd guarantees an individual right, so we will never see them attack an anti-gun law in defense of any slime gun owners. i do detest some of their 'clients' but i understand all too well that if you compromise one time, you have effectively given up that right. gun owners did once, and look where we are today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2002 2:44:06 PM EDT
[#3]
So let me see if I've got this right - the 1st Amendment protects libraries continued receipt of taxpayers' funds despite the fact that they have done nothing to prevent children from being able to log onto porn sites located at the library and accessible to children.
[b]Hmmmm, and this decision protects the Republic....how...?[/b] We always crow about the 'original intent' of the framers of the 2nd Amendment, but apparently some of us care not a fig for what the Founding Fathers may have had in mind when they protected freedom of expression. It appears that the ACLU is even more screwed up than some of you may think. Wait'll you have children. You may think twice before you send them to the library to hang out with 'Uncle Joe' in the Kiddie Section, surfing the 'Fun With Farm Animals' website! And as a taxpayer, you might even feel rather shocked that you're buying porn for [u]anyone[/u]! So if you ever have kids or pay taxes, let us know how your feel [u]then[/u]. Eric The(NudeDancingIs'ProtectedSpeech',AsIsTheRightToHaveTaxpayersPayForYouToWatchSuch'ProtectedSpeech')Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2002 2:49:58 PM EDT
[#4]
ETH, I beleive that being forced to watch you dance naked would be a direct violation of my 8th amendment rights. And possibly good taste. If I go blind, there may be a 6th amendment violation as well.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2002 2:54:12 PM EDT
[#5]
Eric, I have a little girl, and I think it is my responsibility to protect and guide her, not the gov't.
i am for smaller gov't, ALWAYS, unless it is prescribed in the constitution. We all tend to feel ok about the Gov't doing something to limit others, when it doesn't affect us, (and this don't affect me), but I'm still against it. I think it is wrong for kids to be surfing the web for some of the f*&ked up stuff on it, but adults should be free to choose, and if an adult does not have internet access at home, he can go to the public library. He may want to research testicular cancer, or she may need to research breast cancer, and this would be filtered out on the library, wrongly so. It is not the Gov't's responsibility to censure thi internet, even at the public library. WL |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2002 2:54:19 PM EDT
[#6]
Post from poikilotrm -
ETH, I believe that being forced to watch you dance naked would be a direct violation of my 8th amendment rights. Heck, I even avert [u]my[/u] eyes at the appropriate moments! I couldn't blame anyone for doing so, as well! Eric The(PlentyToBeModestAbout)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2002 2:54:59 PM EDT
[#7]
Ahem!!!!!!
Eric! Don't you realize that *some* filters screen out AR15.com, as being too "violence oriented for children????? DUH! You want public library sites to block THIS site from kids? Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater...... It all depends on WHO makes the definition of what is "appropriate for children" now, doesn't it????? Even a breast cancer info site can be blocked by this software...... Censorship is WRONG!!!!! No matter how well intentioned it is. "Porn-proof the kids, not the computers", to paraphrase a popular pro-gun phrase. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2002 3:16:30 PM EDT
[#8]
Myself, I'm rather fond of nude dancers. But that's beside the point. If the bill wouldn't have been declared unconstitutional (which it was), this would have given ACCOUNTANTS far off in DC the right to decide what's right for your children to read and what not.
Let me extrapolate... "Do your parents have this 'Kid Safe Approved' seal on their PC at home? No? Ohh, they are very very sick, but we will help them." "Ever seen _this_ book? It's evil! and your parents are really disturbed people. We'll bring you to a foster family right away!" "No, we don't have anything from Mark Twain in this here library, and nothing written by Shakespeare either." "Yes, we had to ban this anatomy book from the school, it showed a picture of an elbow in there." "Why of course, [i]we[/i] decide what's appropriate and what's not, let's burn all the dangerous, evolutionist and heretic stuff." Just as the Second Amendment states "...shall NOT be infringed.", the First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." In other words, the First Amendment gives the press the right to publish news, information and opinions without gophernment interference. This also means people have the right to access newspapers, newsletters, magazines, websites, and obtain their information from any source they chose [dons white-powdered wig and waves Sharps rifle] It's the Bill of frigging Rights, the Law of the Land, and nobody should dare to compromise away the rights of any American defined therein. Not a little at a time, not wholesale, not at all. No law that is in contradiction with the Constitution and the BoR can be anything but null and void. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2002 3:25:55 PM EDT
[#9]
Post from Hannah_Reitsch -
Ahem!!!!!!Eric! Ahem, Hannah! Don't you realize that *some* filters screen out AR15.com, as being too "violence oriented for children????? [u]Every[/u] filter does this, or is this just a red herring? DUH! Duh? Duh what? You want public library sites to block THIS site from kids? You know, there's probably times I wouldn't want my five year old granddaughter to see this site, but if she's in my home, I control the PC. If she's sitting in a public library....who knows? Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater...... What are you talking about? You don't think that it may be possible to throw out bathwater without sacrificing our kids? It all depends on WHO makes the definition of what is "appropriate for children" now, doesn't it????? As always! As it does whether it is in your home or at the public library, right? So why not have reasonable restrictions on computers that are available to children, and those that are not. We do it with movies, don't we? Even a breast cancer info site can be blocked by this software...... Sounds like a 'appropriate for children' type of decision doesn't it? But then again, I do not wish for my 5 year old granddaughter to be visiting a breast cancer site, either. You may show your granddaughter whatever you may deem appropriate, but don't ask me to pay for it! Censorship is WRONG!!!!! No matter how well intentioned it is. That, Hannah, is simply BULLSH|T! Discretion is what it's all about, pure and simple! "Porn-proof the kids, not the computers", to paraphrase a popular pro-gun phrase. 'Porn-proof' the children? Now, how in the hell do you propose to do that? Well, as you say, Jedem Das Seine, but in this case, I say to each his own at his own damn expense, not the taxpayers' expense! Eric The(Reasonable)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2002 3:27:05 PM EDT
[#10]
So, Eric, you no longer support the Constitution, I take it?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2002 3:28:59 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: So, Eric, you no longer support the Constitution, I take it? Edited to add: And you leave your 5 year old granddaughter alone in public libraries?? Shame shame! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2002 3:35:53 PM EDT
[#12]
Post from Hannah_Reitsch -
So, Eric, you no longer support the Constitution, I take it? If that's what you got from my post, you can believe as you wish. It's a free country, after all! [:D] And you leave your 5 year old granddaughter alone in public libraries?? Shame shame! Not at age 5, but there will be a day when she will be in a public library with classmates and neither I nor her parents will be unable to be there with her! So, Hannah, just how pornographic shall a site have to be before it's unavailable for young children to view? And before it is unacceptable that public funds are being used to bring it free of charge to the reprobates of the country? Hmmmm?????? Eric The(Sassy)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2002 3:38:02 PM EDT
[#13]
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2002 3:46:13 PM EDT
[#14]
So, Hannah, how does the 1st Amendment protect Porn for Kids?
It's not there in the actual wording. It's not there in the original debates of the Founding Fathers. It's not found anywhere in the judicial decisions from the very beginning of our Republic. Until very, very recently. Do you think the Founding Fathers had 'nude dancing' in mind when they drafted this Amendment to the Constitution? Do you think that any state legislature had 'nude dancing' in mind when they approved the Bill of Rights? So where did it come from? From Judges. Eric The(EvenSassier)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2002 3:50:12 PM EDT
[#15]
Well, Eric, do you think they had AR15s in mind when the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment?
Or any "high capacity assault weapon"? Yet you claim 2nd Amendment protection for these, right? Geeez, make up your mind. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2002 4:00:52 PM EDT
[#16]
Post from Hannah_Reitsch -
Well, Eric, do you think they had AR15s in mind when the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment? They didn't have to have any particular weapon in mind, now, did they? They said 'arms.' That's pretty easy. Even the US Supreme Court figured out what was meant by 'arms' in [u]US vs. Miller[/u], and, shazamm, got it right! Arms are those sorts of weapons that are commonly used by the militia. Or any "high capacity assault weapon"? See my previous answer! Yet you claim 2nd Amendment protection for these, right? Absolutely! See my previous answer. Geeez, make up your mind. Sorry, but I'm rock solid on this one. Your views are the ones that are migrating all over the place. How is it that the Supreme Court 'discovered' that the Founding Fathers meant 'nude dancing' when they used the term 'freedom of speech' in the 1st Amendment? No one had ever thought of that before, but, wham, it's there plain as day [u]now[/u], right? I see you subscribe to the 'living document' view of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That's a shame. Eric The(StillSassyAt50)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2002 4:05:34 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: You may show your granddaughter whatever you may deem appropriate, but don't ask me to pay for it! ...in this case, I say to each his own at his own damn expense, not the taxpayers' expense! Eric The(Reasonable)Hun[>]:)] That's the rub, isn't it? Exactly what should public money go toward stocking the library with? My personally feelings on this are that we must be (forgive the phrase) as liberal as possible in our decisions, lest we throw away the Catcher in the Rye along with "Hot teen lesbo action." As another poster said, and I happen to agree, censorship is wrong--period. I don't need anyone ELSE deciding what I am "allowed" to view. Also remember that the internet access for a library costs the same--no matter WHAT anybody views with it, be it the works of H.G. Wells or Larry Flint, there is no additional cost incurred. ANY access policy becomes restrictive rather than permissive (i.e. active censorship) and must be looked upon with the greatest of suspicion, lest less popular political belifs become regulated as "hate speech," violent, "or otherwise "inappropriate." |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2002 4:07:55 PM EDT
[#18]
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."
That seems to cover anything folks want to say, print, or publish, Eric, even if it doesn't meet approval by certain religious cults. The Internet is an electronic form of the press, clear as day. If people want to post nude dancers there, well, tough, it is Constitutionally protected. You can't pick and choose. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2002 4:09:43 PM EDT
[#19]
Post from Hannah_Reitsch -
Well, Eric, do you think they had AR15s in mind when the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment? They didn't have to have any particular weapon in mind, now, did they? They said 'arms.' That's pretty easy. The whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to arm the citizenry to be able to defend themselves from both foreign and domestic foes. Whatever promotes this defense is good, whatever hinders it is bad. Even the US Supreme Court figured out what was meant by 'arms' in [u]US vs. Miller[/u], and, shazamm, got it right! Arms are those sorts of weapons that are commonly used by the militia. Or any "high capacity assault weapon"? See my previous answer! Yet you claim 2nd Amendment protection for these, right? Absolutely! See my previous answer. Geeez, make up your mind. Sorry, but I'm rock solid on this one. Your views are the ones that are migrating all over the place. How is it that the Supreme Court 'discovered' that the Founding Fathers meant 'nude dancing' when they used the term 'freedom of speech' in the 1st Amendment? No one had ever thought of that before, but, wham, it's there plain as day [u]now[/u], right? We know for a fact what the Founding Fathers were trying to protect with freedom of speech. They meant that political speech was to be free from government interference. Not that some woman can shake her ta-tas at some schmuck sitting on a barstool. I see you subscribe to the 'living document' view of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That's a real shame. Eric The(StillSassyAt50)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2002 4:14:47 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: They didn't have to have any particular weapon in mind, now, did they? They said 'arms.' That's pretty easy. While the primary purpose of the 1st amendment was to protect political speech, the founders said "speech," and "the press," and that, too, is pretty easy. That freedom of the press protects Playboy and Hustler magazines just as strongly as it protects the Washington Post and the New York Times--just because you don't like it, or don't agree with it, doesn't mean the constitution doesn't protect it--in fact, one would argue that it's protected even more strongly due to the polarized debate on the subject! Whatever happened to "I disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2002 4:17:52 PM EDT
[#21]
HR:Well, Eric, do you think they had AR15s in mind when the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment?
Eric:They didn't have to have any particular weapon in mind, now, did they? They said 'arms.' That's pretty easy. Now me: Neither is there any mention made of any "future developments included or excluded". HR: Yet you claim 2nd Amendment protection for these, right? ETH: Absolutely! See my previous answer. Sorry, but I'm rock solid on this one. Your views are the ones that are migrating all over the place. Now me again: Funny, I did compare you with a rock myself, but I wasn't thinking of the solid aspects of said sediment. Today's highspeed printing press wasn't foreseen by the founders, nor was the phone or the Internet, neither were the topics people communicate using these media. And then he said: How is it that the Supreme Court 'discovered' that the Founding Fathers meant 'nude dancing' when they used the term 'freedom of speech' in the 1st Amendment? And I say, "Nude dancing" as such isn't mentioned nor implied, but writing a novel or a documentary about it cleary is protectd by the Constitution And he said: I see you subscribe to the 'living document' view of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And then I am asking, As opposed to the 'dead and obsolete' point of view held by weasel lawyers? Smarter people than you (1) have decided government controlled media are unconstitutional, and they've got it right. All of the Constitution and ALL of the Bill of Rights, ALL the time. You can't pick your favorites. (1) or you would be a judge in the Federal Appeals Court yourself, now would you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2002 4:30:45 PM EDT
[#22]
Post from Zak -
While the primary purpose of the 1st amendment was to protect political speech, the founders said "speech," and "the press," and that, too, is pretty easy. Yes, so? That freedom of the press protects Playboy and Hustler magazines just as strongly as it protects the Washington Post and the New York Times--just because you don't like it, or don't agree with it, doesn't mean the constitution doesn't protect it--in fact, one would argue that it's protected even more strongly due to the polarized debate on the subject! The 'freedom of the press' protects Playboy and Hustler 'just as strongly' when they are in their 'press' mode. Why can't Playboy and Hustler post kiddie porn? I thought that 'freedom of the press' was absolute? Hmmm? Maybe not? Can Playboy and Penthouse print an article that says that Joe Schmoe is a convicted child molester, when it is not true? I thought that 'freedom of the press' was absolute? Hmmmm" Maybe not? When Playboy and Hustler stop acting like an organ of the press, and begin acting like pimps for Nambla or Kiddie Porn.com, it does appear that 'freedom of the press' can and has been curtailed. So what gives? Eric The(Patient)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2002 4:41:08 PM EDT
[#23]
So based on some of the "logic" I see here...
you wouldn't care if your 8, 10, or 12 year old had unrestricted access to topless/bottomless clubs? Some of them don't even serve alcohol, so there shouldn't be any reason they can't visit without your knowledge or consent. Agree? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2002 4:44:34 PM EDT
[#24]
Jaja, Eric, "Schund und Schmutz!", I hear ya. Wanna come to our first annual book-burning party we are going to hold May 10th, 2003, you know, to celebrate the 70th anniversity? (1)
I bring my printing of "Romeo and Juliet" (2), you can bring you "Huck Finn" and "Gone with the Wind". (1) May 10th, 1933: the German Nazi Party burns books of inappropriate and "pornographic" content. (2) who have been less than 14 yrs of age at the time of the story told |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2002 4:45:56 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: Why can't Playboy and Hustler post kiddie porn? I thought that 'freedom of the press' was absolute? Hmmm? Maybe not? Fair question, that has an answer: The act of creating the child pornography has a (VERY) detrimental effect on the child--there is a VICTIM here--thus its creation and publication is against the law--your right to swing your fist ends at my (or my child's, in this case) nose. The recent Supreme Court case on "simulated child pronography" strongly supports this idea, wouldn't you say? Can Playboy and Penthouse print an article that says that Joe Schmoe is a convicted child molester, when it is not true? I thought that 'freedom of the press' was absolute? Hmmmm" Maybe not? This is related to the above--printing that untruth causes HARM to an innocent party. Speech is NOT, stricly speaking, what is being restricted in either of these cases--it is deliberate and harmful action upon another innocent party, with speach merely as the vehicle. When Playboy and Hustler stop acting like an organ of the press, and begin acting like pimps for Nambla or Kiddie Porn.com, it does appear that 'freedom of the press' can and has been curtailed. Last I heard, NAMBLA is still alive and kicking, and Larry Flint has won in front of the supreme court--I'd say your above statement is mistaken. As sick and disgusting as NAMBLA's ideas are, yes, they're protected by the contitution as speech. When their speech turns into ACTION and actually HARMS a child, string the bastards up--until then, sorry, but nambla.org (.com, .net, whatever the hell their website is) has the exact same right to exist as ar15.com. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2002 4:56:09 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: So based on some of the "logic" I see here... you wouldn't care if your 8, 10, or 12 year old had unrestricted access to topless/bottomless clubs? Some of them don't even serve alcohol, so there shouldn't be any reason they can't visit without your knowledge or consent. Agree? You're comparing apples and trombones. Your example has nothing at all to do with the topic. I would feel pestered if there'd be a law saying I'd have to lock away my books from the kids and have to prove it, or else there'd be a 100% sales tax on it. I'd be bothered if the gophernment told me I can't buy books with more than 30 pages, or printed before the PC cleansing. I'd be annoyed if there was a Million Assclowns March telling me I can't have a fully capable PC because "what if the children turn it on?" I'd be angry as a sack full of weasels, if the Feds decide, since the libraries said "shove your money where the sun don't shine!" and start forcing ISPs to filter websites and other Internet content (usenet, irc, etc.) like they DO right FRIGGIN NOW in Germany. I didn't leave there to run into the same kind of do-gooding "it's for the children" nazis I thought I left behind. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2002 5:28:10 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It all depends on WHO makes the definition of what is "appropriate for children" now, doesn't it????? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As always! As it does whether it is in your home or at the public library, right? So why not have [red]reasonable restrictions[/red] on computers that are available to children, and those that are not. Eric- This is the SAME argument that the Anti's use against us in their quest to take away our freedoms! First it was the '34 NFA, then the '68 GCA, then the '86 FOPA and now the '94 CB...whats next??? The majority of people don't support kids looking at porn, but where does it end?!?! Back in the days of long ago, the majority of peolpe saw nothing wrong with MG's or AW's but things change..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2002 5:52:38 PM EDT
[#28]
Post from Quiksilver -
Eric- This is the SAME argument that the Anti's use against us in their quest to take away our freedoms! Certainly. But so what? Are there [b]never[/b] times when you favor 'reasonable restrictions'? I mean [u][b]never[/b][/u]? And just because our enemies are stupid, let's not follow after them and become equally stupid ourselves! First it was the '34 NFA, then the '68 GCA, then the '86 FOPA and now the '94 CB...whats next??? 'Reasonable restrictions' does not equate with prohibition. Are you in favor of weapons being permitted in courtrooms? In [u]divorce[/u] courtrooms? At the Super Bowl? At Concerts? At [u]Rap[/u] Concerts? The majority of people don't support kids looking at porn, but where does it end?!?! It ends right there. No one need take it a step further. But do you favor taxpayers' money being used by folks to view pornography on the internet at public libraries? I don't. I don't say rid the internet of porn, I just say that if porn's your cup of tea, then get a job and buy it the good Old Fashioned American Way! Back in the days of long ago, the majority of people saw nothing wrong with MG's or AW's but things change..... That's why I'm against this 'living document' bullsh|t that the others are preaching! I don't want my essential rights defined by folks who see nothing wrong with providing internet sites for children to use and then not protecting the children from what they might encounter through that site. That seems simple enough. And guess what? That's the way that the Founding Fathers saw it, as well. Eric The(ExtremelyReasonable)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2002 6:22:01 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Quoted: So based on some of the "logic" I see here... you wouldn't care if your 8, 10, or 12 year old had unrestricted access to topless/bottomless clubs? Some of them don't even serve alcohol, so there shouldn't be any reason they can't visit without your knowledge or consent. Agree? You're comparing apples and trombones. Your example has nothing at all to do with the topic. I would feel pestered if there'd be a law saying I'd have to lock away my books from the kids and have to prove it, or else there'd be a 100% sales tax on it. I'd be bothered if the gophernment told me I can't buy books with more than 30 pages, or printed before the PC cleansing. I'd be annoyed if there was a Million Assclowns March telling me I can't have a fully capable PC because "what if the children turn it on?" I'd be angry as a sack full of weasels, if the Feds decide, since the libraries said "shove your money where the sun don't shine!" and start forcing ISPs to filter websites and other Internet content (usenet, irc, etc.) like they DO right FRIGGIN NOW in Germany. I didn't leave there to run into the same kind of do-gooding "it's for the children" nazis I thought I left behind. Apples and trombones? Excuse me? Why can't a 15 year old go to an NC-17 movie? That's speech? Is it possible that there is a difference between and ADULT having a [i]right[/i] to speech as opposed to being a CHILD? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2002 6:52:28 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: Certainly. But so what? Are there [b]never[/b] times when you favor 'reasonable restrictions'? I mean [u][b]never[/b][/u]? Well, I think there should be a limit for lawyer's fees, I'm thinking about $20 bucks an hour is very reasonable. And just because our enemies are stupid, let's not follow after them and become equally stupid ourselves! [img]http://www.alexandertechnique.com.au/images/Mirror.gif[/img] 'Reasonable restrictions' does not equate with prohibition. No, but the form seem to have a tendency to turn into the latter. Are you in favor of weapons being permitted in courtrooms? Hmm, in case somebody would be unhappy with a lawyer? But do you favor taxpayers' money being used by folks to view pornography on the internet at public libraries? Do you favor taxpayers' money being used to restrict freedom of speech? That's why I'm against this 'living document' bullsh|t that the others are preaching! Again, as opposed to 'dead and obsolete'? I don't want my essential rights defined by folks who see nothing wrong with providing internet sites for children to use and then not protecting the children from what they might encounter through that site. Yeah, protect the chiiiildren! Shall there be restrictions on everything because a few squeamish, pussificated adults think tits or a close-up of some pubic hair are bad for the chiiiildren? Pffft, I used to rifle through my Dad's stack of nudie mags and watched the odd tits&ass flick when was but a wee lad; didn't do [i]me[/i] any harm (I dare you to say otherwise, I'll track you down and throw up in your lap). After the initial excitement, the novelty wears off and you discover that there are other books in the library too, not only Herr Doktor Schmeisser's Akkurate Anatomie of the Female Body. Besides, don't you think teen pregnancy, and pre-marriage sex wouldn't be both a bit lower if Little Timmy or Tyrone got a chance jerking off at times at a midnight nude flick or a stamp-sized pic? But that's besides the point. The bottom line is: no gophernment has a right to tell me what to look at or read, and no gophernment has a right to tell me what I allow my kids what to look at or read. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2002 6:57:56 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: Excuse me? You're excused. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2002 7:20:22 PM EDT
[#32]
It never ceases to amaze me how screwed up conservative, pro constitution people get when the subject turns to sex! I am as pro 2nd, BOR and constitution as ANYONE here, but find the positions of others beyond understanding. Yes, I DO have a daughter (grown) and was always very open about what she could see or read. Some of it I didn't like but she had/has as much right to information to form her opinions as anyone else. Censorship is a tool of insecure and ignorant people trying to dominate others. Often it is the tool of religious zealots (fanatics) such as moslems. I do not practice it nor do I support it. Just as I oppose ALL gun laws, I oppose ALL censorship. I take the constitution as a whole and support it all, including those areas I may not like. Censorship is totalitarianism and I HATE it.
Eric, I often agree with you but THIS time you are flat wrong! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2002 7:43:32 PM EDT
[#33]
Post from Mickey Mouse -
It never ceases to amaze me how screwed up conservative, pro constitution people get when the subject turns to sex! Trust me, it has nothing to do with sex! I actually love sex. I read Playboy for the articles and the pics! But I do not ask that it be placed in the children's corner at the library! Do you? It amazes me how some conservative, pro-Constitution people get screwed up when it comes to providing sh|t for other folks' kids that they woule never, ever permit their own children to read![:D] Censorship is a tool of insecure and ignorant people trying to dominate others. I am neither insecure, ignorant, nor trying to dominate anyone. My children and grandchildren are doing just fine. They must, however, live in a world in which they have contact with and interact with the children and grandchildren of boobs. Boobs who don't have a clue. Who have no idea what goes on the internet. And lastly, I don't want to pay for it! We're not talking [i]Ulysses[/i] by James Joyce, we're not talking [i]Lady Chatterly's Lover[/i] by D. H. Lawrence, we're not even talking [i]Naked[/i] Lunch by William Burroughs. Those are not the websites we are talkng about restricting are we? You know which ones. The ones you wouldn't let your own kids go to! Eric, I often agree with you but THIS time you are flat wrong! Really? Well, I respect your opinion, for certain. Do you favor the NPCC guides for movies? Why or why not? Eric The(DecidingNotToSendYourWife'sNudePhotoToYourFriendsAndRelativesAsYourNextChristmasCardIsNotCensorship)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2002 8:05:45 PM EDT
[#34]
Is the obsession with always trying to have the last word an occupational hazard for lawyers or are you just being childish?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2002 8:14:02 PM EDT
[#35]
Hmmm, [b]Kar98[/b], do you consider your profession to be the be-all, end-all of your existence?
'Cause I sure as hell don't! Eric The(MoreThanALawyer)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2002 8:55:07 PM EDT
[#36]
Well, now that you're asking me [i]that[/i]...I'm actually in the "empower children" business, teaching them the values of their own efforts, the pride in accomplishments, and that the harder you work, the better of you are.
My company helps school groups, boy and girl scout troops/packs/dens, school bands, PTAs, church groups and junior cops and firemen and similar groups to raise money for their needs, and quite successfully so. I help kids to grow up and become responsible members of society. I've even got testimonials, let me check my e-mail box... [i]"I just wanted to let you know that I truly appreciate all that you and your organization have done for us. "I would strongly recommend this program to any Christian school, church youth program or missions group." [/i] ...to quote from just a few e-mails I saved... Is there a better profession than making children's eyes sparkle in glee? [bounce] Now, you were saying? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2002 3:50:14 AM EDT
[#37]
Post from Kar98 -
Is there a better profession than making children's eyes sparkle in glee? I cannot think of one right offhand. But if you think that I am only a lawyer, then you don't know me at all. Period. Now, you were saying? That the Lord Himself said: [red][b]But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.[/b][/red] Matthew 18:6 I take Him at His word, so anyone who permits, or does not prevent, or pays taxes to provide, or in any manner facilitates the offending of children with pornographic materials over the internet, is guilty of offending one of these little ones who belong to Jesus. And just because your 'living document' view of the Constitution encourages you to believe that there is nothing that can be lawfully done to prevent it, well, let's just say [u]that[/u] excuse will ring rather hollow at the Great White Throne Judgment in the next world. 'Course, I'm just speaking as an attorney, you know.[:D] Eric The(AndATrueBeliever)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2002 4:58:10 AM EDT
[#38]
So? As inspired as the Founding Fathers [i]might[/i] have been by their personal believes, the 1st [i]also[/i] states [i]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...[/i], so the Law of the Land is [b]still[/b] defined by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and not, say again not, by the Bible.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2002 5:03:51 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: Well, as you say, Jedem Das Seine, but in this case, I say to each his own at his own damn expense, not the taxpayers' expense! Eric The(Reasonable)Hun[>]:)] As a taxpayer, I'm already getting dinged for the computer and internet access, now you want me to pay extra for software to protect "your" child? Perhaps if you instruct your child not to view that stuff you could save me some $$? If your child is disobedient that's your problem! Don't reach into my pocket to solve it! I'm already paying too much "for the children"... Remove the computers if you must. Why is it my responsibility to pay for some one else's computer and internet?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2002 5:15:53 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: It never ceases to amaze me how screwed up conservative, pro constitution people get when the subject turns to sex! I am as pro 2nd, BOR and constitution as ANYONE here, but find the positions of others beyond understanding. Yes, I DO have a daughter (grown) and was always very open about what she could see or read. Some of it I didn't like but she had/has as much right to information to form her opinions as anyone else. Censorship is a tool of insecure and ignorant people trying to dominate others. Often it is the tool of religious zealots (fanatics) such as moslems. I do not practice it nor do I support it. Just as I oppose ALL gun laws, I oppose ALL censorship. I take the constitution as a whole and support it all, including those areas I may not like. Censorship is totalitarianism and I HATE it. Eric, I often agree with you but THIS time you are flat wrong! In a nutshell... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2002 5:29:34 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: That the Lord Himself said: [red][b]But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.[/b][/red] Matthew 18:6 I take Him at His word, so anyone who permits, or does not prevent, or pays taxes to provide, or in any manner facilitates the offending of children with pornographic materials over the internet, is guilty of offending one of these little ones who belong to Jesus. 'Course, I'm just speaking as an attorney, you know.[:D] Eric The(AndATrueBeliever)Hun[>]:)] The little one who believes in Jesus shouldn't be surfing looking for porn should they? No offense if someone, (even a "child"), makes the choice to view it. If properly instructed, (by parents), the child who accidently comes across it will just move on. This argument would mean that one should keep the child home, and "protect" it from the world (especially govt. schools)... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2002 5:46:30 AM EDT
[#42]
[b]Sweet Jesus![/b]
Post from liberty86 - The little one who believes in Jesus shouldn't be surfing looking for porn should they? Have you ever 'accidentally' hit a porn site? I can remember when I first signed up with AOL. One of my first e-mails was from someone named 'Sharon' with the subject line 'Sorry About That!' When I opened the e-mail, there was a link, and that was all. I hit the link, and, suddenly, I knew as much about 'Sharon' as her gynecologist knew about her! No offense if someone, (even a "child"), makes the choice to view it. If properly instructed, (by parents), the child who accidently comes across it will just move on. Yes, that is true sometimes. I was properly instructed by God-fearing parents in 1950s Texas. When my equally-God-fearing-parents'-instructed friends showed me a Playboy Magazine in 1964, I was dumbstruck. I knew what the human body looked like in books, I had seen the masterpiece paintings by Reubens, et al., but I had never seen the female body quite like [u]that[/u] before. This argument would mean that one should keep the child home, and "protect" it from the world (especially govt. schools)... I'm all in favor of home-schooling until such time as control of our schools is returned to the parents. [b]I think all children should be 'protected' from the world.[/b] And to use some lame-brained 'living document' argument that the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned the internet is pure drivel, plain and simple. It is the last refuge of scoundrels who wish to amend the Constitution to encompass their worldview and pet projects without going through the uncertain process of amendment as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Eric The(TheLordIsMyShepherd...)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2002 6:32:45 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: I can remember when I first signed up with AOL. Me too :) Took me about 20 minutes to get totally frustrated with the service and cancel it within the hour to find a real ISP. Yes, that is true sometimes. I was properly instructed by God-fearing parents in 1950s Texas. Sounds idyllic. I wish I could have been there. (No sarcasm here.) I'm all in favor of home-schooling until such time as control of our schools is returned to the parents. Just what I was saying, the parents should be able to decide what's appropriate for their children, not some accountant in DC. [b]I think all children should be 'protected' from the world.[/b] That you can't do, and shouldn't try to. Neither is it possible to accomplish this goal, nor is it desirable. Look at it this way: I knew where the li'l ones came from when I was 5, and I fathered my first child when I was 22. Early "enlightenment" about the bees and birds issue left me "knowing all about it" (as I thought as a kid) and I had no need to figure out "the secret" using the muddy roads. And to use some lame-brained 'living document' argument that the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned the internet is pure drivel, plain and simple. I quite agree, but so far you're the only one to use that argument. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2002 7:00:24 AM EDT
[#44]
Post from Kar98 -
That you can't do, and shouldn't try to. Neither is it possible to accomplish this goal, nor is it desirable. It is one thing to know about the 'birds and the bees' and quite another thing to view the birds and bees getting after it like a couple of weasels in rut! Look at it this way: I knew where the li'l ones came from when I was 5, and I fathered my first child when I was 22. Me, too, except that my daughter was born when I was 19. In college. Poor as a church mouse. Early "enlightenment" about the bees and birds issue left me "knowing all about it" (as I thought as a kid) and I had no need to figure out "the secret" using the muddy roads. You had nice parents. But I would bet that your views about what your parents were teaching you would have been severely changed if you had easy access to what is now available to our children [u]and[/u] were the target of pornmeisters. There is no way that a young child's mind can be exposed to that sort of thing without it affecting him or her in ways unknown. I quite agree, but so far you're the only one to use that argument. The Founding Fathers were well aware of the history of written communications from Sumerian clay tablets to parchment to woodcut printing to the Gutenberg Press. Similarly, they were well aware in the advance of armaments through the ages. To think otherwise is to ignore the realities of what we know they [u]knew[/u]! Eric The(UnlikeAnyLawyerYou'veEverMet)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2002 7:07:07 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: The Founding Fathers were well aware of the history of written communications from Sumerian clay tablets to parchment to woodcut printing to the Gutenberg Press. Similarly, they were well aware in the advance of armaments through the ages. Hence the 1st applies to TV and Internet too, just as well as the 2nd applies to evil black assault rifles and automatic pistols. Kar98, the most rabid, old-glory-waving, Constitution-thumping Kraut [i]you'll[/i] ever meet ;) |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2002 7:28:05 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: Quoted: Well, as you say, Jedem Das Seine, but in this case, I say to each his own at his own damn expense, not the taxpayers' expense! Eric The(Reasonable)Hun[>]:)] As a taxpayer, I'm already getting dinged for the computer and internet access, now you want me to pay extra for software to protect "your" child? Perhaps if you instruct your child not to view that stuff you could save me some $$? If your child is disobedient that's your problem! Don't reach into my pocket to solve it! I'm already paying too much "for the children"... Remove the computers if you must. Why is it my responsibility to pay for some one else's computer and internet?? Hmmmm, I'll try this again, perhaps I'll get an answer.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2002 7:56:57 AM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: [b]Sweet Jesus![/b] Post from liberty86 - The little one who believes in Jesus shouldn't be surfing looking for porn should they? Have you ever 'accidentally' hit a porn site? No, but my stepson entered www.whitehouse.com in the address bar one time and got one. He didn't stay there long either! I can remember when I first signed up with AOL. One of my first e-mails was from someone named 'Sharon' with the subject line 'Sorry About That!' When I opened the e-mail, there was a link, and that was all. I hit the link, and, suddenly, I knew as much about 'Sharon' as her gynecologist knew about her! Blame AOL not the pornmiesters. Those who take aol and the others must put up with their system. In 4 years, I have received one porn e-mail, all the others were virus's. No offense if someone, (even a "child"), makes the choice to view it. If properly instructed, (by parents), the child who accidently comes across it will just move on. Yes, that is true sometimes. I was properly instructed by God-fearing parents in 1950s Texas. When my equally-God-fearing-parents'-instructed friends showed me a Playboy Magazine in 1964, I was dumbstruck. I knew what the human body looked like in books, I had seen the masterpiece paintings by Reubens, et al., but I had never seen the female body quite like [u]that[/u] before. Maybe your parents should have chosen your friends more carefully? This argument would mean that one should keep the child home, and "protect" it from the world (especially govt. schools)... I'm all in favor of home-schooling until such time as control of our schools is returned to the parents. [b]I think all children should be 'protected' from the world.[/b] I've seen the results on those kids "protected" from the world by their parents. It ain't very pretty sometimes when they are older. I'm sure you catch my drift. And to use some lame-brained 'living document' argument that the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned the internet is pure drivel, plain and simple. It is the last refuge of scoundrels who wish to amend the Constitution to encompass their worldview and pet projects without going through the uncertain process of amendment as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Eric The(TheLordIsMyShepherd...)Hun[>]:)] Porn was in existence at the time of the founders. One reason for Article I in the Bill of Rights was that no single religious denomination achieve majority power and regulate the others. The founders CLEARLY wanted a secular yet virtuous state. Just wanna add here. Jesus came to save the lost, not the found. Sin is GOOD for us, in that when (and if) we ever hit our bottom with no where to turn, this gives G#d the opportunity to reveal himself. Who really knows the miraculous power of G#d, the life long churchgoer? Or the highly dysfunctional (sinner) who has been saved? Bottom line..G#d wants all to make a free choice.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2002 8:08:41 AM EDT
[#48]
Just want to add, where do we draw the line? Doesn't it ALWAYS lead here?; [url]http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml;jsessionid=MNQ4EFRYNKOFGCRBAEZSFFAKEEATIIWD?type=topnews&StoryID=1043919[/url]
Just like the NFA act leads some to TOTAL gun bans!!......... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2002 8:21:48 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: snip -- The bottom line is: no gophernment has a right to tell me what to look at or read, and [b]no gophernment has a right to tell me what I allow my kids what to look at or read.[/b] snip -- While, basically this is true, the library is [b]public access.[/b] My children would be allowed to go there without supervision. It's the same as school: the teachers are responsible for your child at school since you can't be there every day to watch them. Same principle. And if someone who espouses what you do, was teaching my child, I would be a little unnerved. If you don't have the maturity to understand this, you shouldn't be anywhere near children. They are not "little adults," they are children. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2002 8:27:21 AM EDT
[#50]
Hey, Eric!
Didn't the decision say that the law couldn't go into effect not because the Supreme's wanted children to have access to porn, but because the software blocked [i]legitimate[/i] sites? IOW, if you write blocking software that will block porn, but still leave access to all non-porn sites, that's A-OK? The Supremes are doing their job - erring on the side of [i]more[/i] freedom for the rest of us, rather than [i]less[/i]. You don't want your kids surfing porn on a library 'puter? [size=3][b][i]SIT WITH THEM AND KEEP AN EYE ON WHAT THEY DO[/i][/b][/size=3] Or teach them right from wrong and trust them to do what's right. Or just make the libraries take out all internet access. SCOTUS was right. Right now you're Ericthe(rarelywrong,butthistimeyouare)Hun. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
