What is Digg?44 Comments
- KCLorelei39, on 04/24/2008, -1/+9If you wouldn't want your kids watching a live 'performance' of sexual acts ....and it's illegal for minors to be admitted to places where there is public nudity, nevermind full out sex going on.... why oh why is there even a question over whether a few people have a 'right 'to view a recording of live sex acts performances where minors are at risk of seeing it?
this is like saying the fox has a right to view videos of his favorite prey, the chicken, while parked right in the middle of the chicken coop....
are they too cheap to go to the adult books stores and plunk down their money for that kind of entertainment? /gag - AThoughtOrTwo, on 04/24/2008, -2/+7I know they didn't mention it in this article but the fact is that it is not just HARDCORE PORN, IT IS CHILD PORN being viewed in MOST libraries across this country. And CHILD PORN IS ILLEGAL EVERYWHERE!
This country has not yet fallen to the point where I HAVE TO SUPPORT YOUR PORN ADDICTION. You want to view it - go HOME.
As far as I know, you cannot get a Playboy or Hustler at the local library either... Although they have many other magazines and newspapers... - PappyPapillon, on 04/24/2008, -3/+8I'm sorry but I can't seem to find the porn amendment in my copy of the constitution. The free speech clause of the first amendment is to protect religious and political speech.
- bobinohio, on 04/24/2008, -1/+5Go ahead and allow it. But then pass a bill to cut off all government funding for every library that permits it. Not a single dime of taxpayers money should support this. Let's see how long this will go on when the money dries up.
- inactive, on 04/24/2008, -2/+5Of course the ACLU is upset. It's hard to corrupt and defile children if you restrict their access to porn. Why is this evil organization permitted to exist? Anyone associated with this group should be lined up and shot. After a fair trial of course!
- eir574, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3The article didn't mention it because child porn is already illegal. That's not the issue here.
- postingbh, on 04/24/2008, -0/+3"Of course the biggest risk are the perverts who are viewing kiddie porn, but the other porn is a major danger as well."
- Kiddie porn isn't the issue here. Kiddie porn is illegal regardless. Even if the judge rules that viewing porn is OK in libraries, that wouldn't apply to child porn. It's unfortunate that so many people bring up this distraction.
"the pedophiles were jerking off to pictures of any little girl or boy, whether clothed or not"
- Well, like it or no and as disgusting and grotesque this behavior is, jerking off to pictures of clothed children isn't illegal. The story isn't really telling us anything we don't already know - that pedophiles are sick.
"Libraries are favorite hang-outs for pedophiles. Not only can they view kiddie porn there..."
- Again, viewing kiddie porn is illegal everywhere and that applies to libraries. I'm not sure where you got the idea that viewing child porn in a library is legal or could be made legal by this ruling. - postingbh, on 04/24/2008, -0/+3I'm interested to know who else would lie to the police in this situation. For those that would lie, do you think lying violates your religious beliefs (particularly the 10 commandments)?
- eir574, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3@mikesbaker
Nice. So the ends justify the means? You're allowed to lie and accuse someone of a crime if you don't like what they're doing? That's a terrible thing to do. - Christianptriot, on 04/24/2008, -0/+3No, the link cuts off in your Digg comment above. I tried it and could only get a test post. I followed the link to the recent postings and found the articles, but the link you have posted is cut off by the size of the Digg box. that has happened to me on several occasions.
- Christianptriot, on 04/24/2008, -2/+5No where in the Constitution does it say that the general public must provide for free access to anyone in order for that person to exercise their Constitutional rights. That is like me expecting the government to provide tax-subsidized loans to open up a gun shop in my neighborhood so I don't have to drive so far to get ammo.
- lazerus9, on 04/24/2008, -0/+3The link works fine, perhaps your perspective is too narrow or perhaps your vision is faulty!
- KCLorelei39, on 04/24/2008, -1/+3the problem is that you have to be registered to view the articles.
- KCLorelei39, on 04/24/2008, -1/+3nope, the link didn't work...before you leap off the cliff of conclusion... check the page this link led to:
this link:
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=4
led to the following text on that page:
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Miscellaneous
See other Miscellaneous Articles
Title: Test Post
Source: None
URL Source: http://None
Published: 28, 2005
Author: Neil
Post Date: 2005-01-28 20:15:14 by Neil McIver
Keywords: Test, Post
Views: 17
Comments: 1
Lots of problems, I'm told.... Apologies. The software is in a very modular type but there's always the bugs.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
I do not wish to register merely to read that article. care to post up the info? otherwise, not too many are going to bother with it, friend - lazerus9, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2That's odd! Sorry, it works when I click on it, but I am using Mozzilla and perhaps that is making a difference. I will see if I can retrieve the whole link.
- postingbh, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Right, ideally nobody gets fired for reporting a crime or refusing to commit a crime. In general, it doesn't seem like this is a problem. But perhaps it's worth considering whether these elements should be added as protected classes like race, religion, gender, etc.
- lazerus9, on 04/24/2008, -1/+3If you can pull yourself away from the WND propaganda for a minute:http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=4 ...
- lazerus9, on 04/24/2008, -1/+3The problem is digg is blocking it! Just copy the link, exit digg and control v and you will connect. I don't know if digg is intentionally blocking links or it's just something screwy in their software.
- lazerus9, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2See my response to cpatriot below for the answer to the link problem.
- lazerus9, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2The link as pictured above contains all of the characters in the address. I don't know what the problem is.
- postingbh, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2The ACLU has been very clear in similar situations explicitly saying they do not want children to have access to porn. They are very detailed in suggesting methods for preventing children from accessing porn:
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/14938res2003080 ... - KCLorelei39, on 04/24/2008, -1/+2that's a bad link...what exactly are you trying to say?
- LifeguardMom, on 04/24/2008, -4/+5Child porn is illegal. Minors viewing any kind of porn is illegal. To allow it in libraries is against the law. The ACLU is in favor of breaking the law. If my mind serves me correctly, in our society, when you break the law you are arrested.
So what's the problem here? Besides blatant stupidity on the part of the ACLU.......... - mikesbaker, on 04/24/2008, -2/+3FTA:
"From the new 2007 Edition of Jewish Supremacism by David Duke"
get your racist crap out of here - mikesbaker, on 04/24/2008, -4/+5direct link
http://www.pacificjustice.org/resources/news/focus ...
also WTF is wrong with the ACLU? isn't there someone somewhere who is genuinely having their rights violated that they can defend. and if I am ever in a library and some perv is looking at porn I'm going to quietly call the police and claim that they were exposing themselves to children even if they wern't. - eir574, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2You said that the first amendment is intended to protect only religious and political speech. I said that may have been the motivation behind the free speech portion of the amendment, but that this does not imply that other types of speech are not protected. If I misinterpreted you, it would be helpful if you'd explain rather than just writing one line quips.
You: " I'm sorry but I can't seem to find the porn amendment in my copy of the constitution. The free speech clause of the first amendment is to protect religious and political speech."
Me (paraphrased): The free speech clause of the first amendment protects types of speech other than political and religious speech, and hence your comment is nonsensical. There are limits on free speech, but those limits are not defined by the two categories you gave. - lazerus9, on 04/24/2008, -2/+3Another Zionist heard from!!
Sorry your censorship doesn't work here! Yet! - eir574, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2Funny. I didn't see that limitation anywhere in the first amendment the last time I read it. A person's right to free speech ends when it infringes on another person's rights, so there are limits. But, those limits don't imply that nothing outside of religious and political speech is protected.
- mikesbaker, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2Did your parents have any other children that were not retarded?
- mikesbaker, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1god you have a fan base albeit small. who dugg you up? and if you've been on digg before 8/07 you would know that I am an outspoken Christian
- kirralin23, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2- Kiddie porn isn't the issue here. Kiddie porn is illegal regardless. Even if the judge rules that viewing porn is OK in libraries, that wouldn't apply to child porn. It's unfortunate that so many people bring up this distraction.
-The point is that although kiddie porn is the most dangerous form of pornography viewing any kind of porn in a library puts kids at risk:
1. Of Seeing it on the screen.
2. Of Seeing some idiot performing sexual acts on themselves.
3. Of Becoming the victim of some idiot who got himself turned on while playing with himself in public while viewing pornography.
- Well, like it or no and as disgusting and grotesque this behavior is, jerking off to pictures of clothed children isn't illegal. The story isn't really telling us anything we don't already know - that pedophiles are sick.
- Actually it is illegal for pedophiles in prison to jerk off to pictures of clothed children while in prison. It is also often a violation of parole even outside of prison. If they are caught doing it they will have to serve the remainder of their prison term and may have additional charges filed, depending on exactly what they were doing. But the point of the comment was to highlight just how sick pedophiles are.
- Again, viewing kiddie porn is illegal everywhere and that applies to libraries. I'm not sure where you got the idea that viewing child porn in a library is legal or could be made legal by this ruling.
-There was a recent article in the news about a librarian who lost her job for reporting an individual viewing kiddie porn in the library. Yes, it is illegal to view kiddie porn everywhere, but individuals are getting away with it and putting children in grave danger; and librarians who act to stop it are at risk of losing their jobs.
The most important point I was trying to make is the fact that libraries are not safe havens for children for these very reasons. Pornography creates a dangerous environment for children regardless of whether or not it is kiddie porn. PORN SHOULD NOT BE VIEWED IN PUBLIC, ESPECIALLY IN PLACES WHERE CHILDREN ARE PRESENT! The story about the pedophiles in prison was meant to open up parents eyes to the dangers presented to their children by these monsters once they get out of prison. Quite often pedophiles are in violation of their parole if they even enter a public library. Both that story and the one about my friends daughter where meant to bring awareness of the fact that the library is not a safe haven where you can drop your children off and expect them to come away educated by the experience. PARENTS NEED TO SUPERVISE THEIR CHILDREN AT THE PUBLIC LIBRARY. The library isn't there to babysit! And pornography adds greatly to the dangers our children face in the public library. - eir574, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2"Employers make their own rules and judgments about how to hire and fire people. Home Depot fires cashiers that stop shoplifters from walking out of the store. I'm not saying it's a good policy, but it's the employer's decision to make"
I agree with you in general, but I'm not sure about this point. There should not be retribution for reporting illegal activities. In some cases, there's legal protection for people who report illegal activities committed by the very people they're working for. Ideally, I'm not sure it should even be legal to fire someone from a government job for reporting a crime, particularly one involving children.
The library had a policy that employees must contact their supervisors before calling the police, so I do agree with you that the case is not as straightforward as it first seems. That policy could serve a valid purpose, so it's not immediately suspect. In this case, the supervisor made a bad decision by telling the librarian not to report the incident to the police, and the librarian was fired for not following her supervisor's instructions. While I think the librarian did the ethical thing , I can also see the library's point of view. When my manager makes what I think is a bad decision, I still have to carry out her instructions. There's a time when I have input, but once the decision is made I'm expected to go along with it. Otherwise, the company would run less efficiently. - eir574, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2The fact that the framers of the constitution were particularly concerned about political and religious speech does not imply that they did not intend to protect other types of speech as well. I believe they were intelligent enough to have written that into the first amendment if they so desired. Yours is among one of the most far fetched interpretations of the first amendment I've ever seen.
If you really believe you have proof that the first amendment does not protect any speech other than religious and political speech, then please tell me what your evidence is. Don't just tell me to go read every history book I can find until I come across that interpretation, as I've studied enough history to know that this is not the case. Religious and political speech may have been considered the types of speech that most needed protection, but how does that imply that no other speech is protected at all? - eir574, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2And would that history book include a legally binding interpretation of the first amendment that limits it to political and religious speech? The first amendment says that Congress shall make no law abridging the right of free speech. How in the world do you read that to mean that congress could, in fact, pass a law limiting our right to free speech regarding, say, sports teams just because that wouldn't be religious or political speech?
- postingbh, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2"Actually it is illegal for pedophiles in prison to jerk off to pictures of clothed children while in prison."
- Right, but we're not talking about prisons; we're talking about public libraries. Criminals have all sorts of extra rules to deal with, that's just part of being a prisoner or parolee. Overall, I just don't think the prison story is really relevant to the conversation.
"There was a recent article in the news about a librarian who lost her job for reporting an individual viewing kiddie porn in the library..."
- Employers make their own rules and judgments about how to hire and fire people. Home Depot fires cashiers that stop shoplifters from walking out of the store. I'm not saying it's a good policy, but it's the employer's decision to make. Either way, the employer's decision doesn't change the illegality of the child porn or shoplifting.
"PORN SHOULD NOT BE VIEWED IN PUBLIC, ESPECIALLY IN PLACES WHERE CHILDREN ARE PRESENT!"
- I think you forgot to turn off caps lock. Statements like this are rather unhelpful in the long run because they confuse personal decisions with legality. There are also sorts of things that I don't think people should or should not do, but the legality of those actions is entirely separate.
Now of course parents need to supervise their children and warn them about such dangers. And it may be true that accessible pornography makes libraries more dangerous. But in arguing that porn shouldn't be accessible in a public library, that's the wrong approach. After all, lots of things make our libraries more dangerous. Simply having "Helter Skelter" or "Mein Kampf" on file could be argued as making the library more dangerous by attracting murderers and sociopaths. But I hope we keep those books accessible despite the dangers.
The right approach in my mind is to say that we already have laws regulating what age people must be to view porn; and that libraries cannot provide reasonable assurance that all people viewing porn would be of legal age. - lazerus9, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1Little Boy
Did you not know there are also Christian Zionists?
Go back to your video games and post comments when you have something of value to say. - kirralin23, on 04/24/2008, -2/+2This is sooo not a freedom of speech issue. Of course the biggest risk are the perverts who are viewing kiddie porn, but the other porn is a major danger as well. When it comes to the kiddie porn it's almost impossible to block it completely because of the sickness that is pedophilia. My husband used to work in a prison. He would have to confiscate everyday types of magazines because the pedophiles were jerking off to pictures of any little girl or boy, whether clothed or not. They had a huge problem when it came to pictures of babies in diapers. Libraries are favorite hang-outs for pedophiles. Not only can they view kiddie porn there, but there are lots of real children running around, often unsupervised. Parents, libraries are not safe, educational havens for children. When you bring your children to the library you must watch them like a hawk. The dangers are everywhere. My friends daughter was snatched in a library. The man was simply walking out the door with her. She was kicking and screaming. What did the bystanders think? Kidnapping? Nope, they were glad that responsible father was taking his tantrum throwing child out of the library. The mother was in the shelves looking for a book. She ran out and screamed "what are you doing with my child?" Then, of course, people gave chase. He dropped the girl so he could get away. Happy ending, but it could have been so much worse. OF COURSE PORN SHOULDN'T BE VIEWED IN LIBRARIES. It puts children at risk of seeing the pornography. It puts children at risk of seeing people perform sexual acts live while they watch. Worst of all, it attracts and entertains pedophiles, making them ready to snatch their next target.
- kirralin23, on 04/24/2008, -2/+2So, why am I being dugg down? I notice there's no reply to my comment. It's just been dugg down. Am I being dugg down by pedophiles?
- lazerus9, on 04/24/2008, -3/+3Let's examine the porn industry a little closer.:http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=835 ...
- PappyPapillon, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1When you're done building your straw man let me know.
- KCLorelei39, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1you probably got dugg down by a porn addict. they don't like their 'entertainment' to be criticized.
I dugg ya back up :) - PappyPapillon, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1No, but it would provide historical context to a subject which your generation of Thundercat viewers sorely lack.
- PappyPapillon, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1Read a history book.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is