View Single Post
Old 04-27-2011, 08:32 AM
Zeriel is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
Originally Posted by Starving Artist View Post
I don't know how New York City's libraries are configured either, but in every library I've ever been in all the computers are easily visible to anyone walking about the floor of the library. Unless the "adult" computers are all situated so that the customer in question has his back to a wall, I don't see how it would be possible to prevent people passing behind them to see what's on their screen. In the event that the computers used to access pornography were indeed situated so as to prevent the possibility of anyone other than the patron in question from seeing them, then I would admittedly have much less of a problem with it. However, there was nothing in either of the articles I linked to which would suggest that this is the case.
My town does a lot of smart things like this, mostly because the population quadruples when the college kids come around.

Apart from the fact that I never said the word "political" was included in the wording of the First Amendment, may I suggest you ask elucidator, since he was the one who first claimed "The Big One was intended to protect, especially and specifically, political speech".
I did call him out on it, upthread, in the same place I first asked you about it. You agreed with him vehemently, so I'm including you--that, and I expect you might actually answer with something other than a quip.

Originally Posted by Starving Artist
Exactly! Especially and "specifically" political speech. That means it was intended to protect political speech specifically and it says nothing one way or the other about other types of speech or other types of expression. The deceit that it does is a liberal invention.
Are the scare quotes supposed to mean "not specifically", then? Could you point out what about it makes you believe it specifically refers to political speech in the plain language of the Constitution?

I'm not being disingenuous here, mind you--I take the exact same position with regard to the Second Amendment (AKA the number one reason I don't vote Democrat very often)--words and grammar mean something. Just as I don't believe the subordinate explanatory clause in the Second Amendment lets the government confine weapons to "well-regulated militias", I do believe the absence of any adjectives in the "freedom of speech" clause was a deliberate choice to not limit the types of speech that should be protected.