Straight Dope Message Board

[YogSothoth]

Originally Posted by Stoid

Correction. If I kill somebody, for ANY reason or NO reason, that's a crime.

My REASON should not be a crime in the land of the free, and I am deeply ashamed of my liberal brethren for insisting on making it so.

Absolutely not, and I can't even fathom the reasoning behind that statement. Is Joe Deadguy extra dead because he was killed for being Jewish? Is Joe Deadguy less dead because he died during a liquor store robbery?

I think crime is crime and people who are intent on harming others will do so for a thousand reasons and it is not the State's business to consider those reasons for the purposes of increasing the punishment except insofar as the crime is actually against the state or the population as a whole, as in assassination of leaders and murder of law enforcement, or to consider them as a mitigting factor to lesson or eliminate punishment, as in self-defense.

Nothing is improved, gained, changed or made better in any way that I have ever seen by boosting the punishment based on the motives of individual criminals, and I think things are made worse. It's a slippery slope, as they say.

I have to disagree. Certain reasons can lead to greater violence.

Self-defense is not a crime, even though the person is dead. Murder during, for example, a robbery is, even though in both cases it leaves someone dead. But we have to ask if the person defending himself is more or less likely to kill again compared to the robber?

Or, if you think self-defense shouldn't be used as an example since it's not a crime, let's take stealing. If I stole because I want something and didn't want to pay for it, should I be punished the same as someone who stole something out of necessity? Bread for myself cause I like bread, or bread for a starving family? I don't think those things should be punished the same. If you ask people, most people would probably say the same thing.

I don't believe in the whole "thought crimes" argument. Nobody's punishing you for thinking certain things. However, once you commit an act that requires punishment, it is certainly within the rights of the state to look at why such an act is committed and how to prevent it. In most cases, deterrence is simply locking up the offender. We accept that random violence happens, that's unavoidable. But we can prevent it, we should, and we do it with harsher punishments.

I'm not saying that we can legislate the hearts of racists into normal people. But just as murder is punished more harshly than jaywalking, we can and do classify crimes in an ascending hierarchy of severity. Racially motivated killings are, then, more severe than non-racial ones. Just as 1st degree murder where you plan it out is more severe than 2nd degree or manslaughter. In all cases, you have someone dead at the end of the day, but looking at your motives can speak to how likely the mistake is to happen again. 101

[Snowboarder Bo]

Aye, like if I kill a leader of a large segment of a population, hoping to incite that segment to riot and thus spur a class or racial "war", that's more reprehensible than just killing a random guy and IMO should be punished more severely.

Heck, without the reasoning behind hate crimes, we couldn't punish terrorists more than a drunk idiot with a gun who shot someone. 102

[Buck Godot]

We also differentiate murder in the first and second degree, based primarily on the thought process involved. We also punish those who kill police officers more than those who kill average people. One can question whether hate crime legislation is good policy, but there is nothing fundamentally different between it and other divisions in the law that are widely accepted. 103

[The Hamster King]

Originally Posted by Stoid

Correction. If I kill somebody, for ANY reason or NO reason, that's a crime.

My REASON should not be a crime in the land of the free, and I am deeply ashamed of my liberal brethren for insisting on making it so.

Right.

I'm walking down the street and a guy pulls a knife on me. In fear for my life, I shoot him and kill him.

I'm hunting in the woods. I see motion in the distance that I think is a deer. I raise my rifle and fire, only to discover to my horror that I've shot another hunter and killed him.

I walk in on my husband as he's molesting his step-daughter ... my daughter. In a fit of rage I pick up a pistol and point it at him. He pleads for his life, but I pull the trigger, shooting him and killing him.

My friends and I disagree with the politics of the mayor of my city. While he's shaking hands at a public gathering I walk up behind him, calmly put a pistol to his head, and shoot him and kill him.

All of these situations should be punished equally? 104

[Ravenman]

Depends. Is that a Democrat mayor and a Democrat hunter that are being killed?

I think it can be safely assumed that all muggers and child molesters are Democrats, so it seems those are legitimate acts of self-defense.

OF COURSE I am joking. But it's the kind of thing that Clothahump might say. 105

[Mosier]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

As good a place as any.

I could have started with Obamacare. I could have gone back to Social Security and Medicare. We are all aware that those are massive doses of liberal stupidity; I chose something more recent.

What exactly is stupid about social security? Wasn't it Bush jr and Washington Republicans that wanted to dump social security money in the stock market less than a year before the market crash? Good thing liberals were there to stop it.

And who does "we all" mean in that second sentence? The stupidity in Obamacare is that Republicans were able to castrate it and remove most of the really beneficial stuff before it was passed. 106

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by The Hamster King

Right.

I'm walking down the street and a guy pulls a knife on me. In fear for my life, I shoot him and kill him.

I'm hunting in the woods. I see motion in the distance that I think is a deer. I raise my rifle and fire, only to discover to my horror that I've shot another hunter and killed him.

I walk in on my husband as he's molesting his step-daughter ... my daughter. In a fit of rage I pick up a pistol and point it at him. He pleads for his life, but I pull the trigger, shooting him and killing him.

My friends and I disagree with the politics of the mayor of my city. While he's shaking hands at a public gathering I walk up behind him, calmly put a pistol to his head, and shoot him and kill him.

All of these situations should be punished equally?

No, because they're not all the same crime. And mitigating circumstances, where present, are considered in both legal defense and sentencing regardless of whether the person who was killed was of a particular race, creed or sexual orientation.

Adding a few extra years because it was a "hate crime" is a meaningless bolt-on. In fact, it's insulting to victims of non-hate crimes: if killing someone because of their membership in a "protected" group (e.g. they're gay or black) is worse than killing someone because you have a personal grudge against them, doesn't that imply that the person killed due to the grudge potentially deserved it just a teensy bit?

All of this is moot though; the OP says "idea of the day" and the day for the debate on hate crime legislation is long past. 107

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

Adding a few extra years because it was a "hate crime" is a meaningless bolt-on. In fact, it's insulting to victims of non-hate crimes: if killing someone because of their membership in a "protected" group (e.g. they're gay or black) is worse than killing someone because you have a personal grudge against them, doesn't that imply that the person killed due to the grudge potentially deserved it just a teensy bit?

I could see how you'd draw that conclusion.
If most of your cortex was removed with a melon baller and then fed to you. 108

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

I could see how you'd draw that conclusion.
If most of your cortex was removed with a melon baller and then fed to you.

That's definitely the last zombie-themed party I attend then.

I understand the good intentions behind hate crime legislation; I just think it doesn't work in practice. IANA judge but I would no more punish someone more for killing a gay man than I would excuse them from the act for suffering "gay panic". 109

[Starving Artist]

Emanating from New York, naturally:

Publicly-funded hardcore porn, courtesy of the New York City library system.

Cite
Cite (AUS)

Now little Johnny or little Susie - or hell, just a civilized grown-up not wanting to happen upon images of "Two girls; one cup" or "Goatze" - better steer clear of New York City's libraries, because:

Library officials said the First Amendment right to free speech allows library visitors using the Internet at the more than 200 library branches in the city to view whatever they want online, including hardcore pornography, the New York Post reported Monday.

"Customers can watch whatever they want on the computer," Brooklyn Public Library spokeswoman Malika Granville said.

New York Public Library spokeswoman Angela Montefinise said limits will not be placed on Internet viewing.

"In deference to the First Amendment protecting freedom of speech, the New York Public Library cannot prevent adult patrons from accessing adult content that is legal," she said.

Now, having never been there, I have no idea whether the New York City library system segregates adult sections from areas open to minors, but if not - apart from the fact that the entire idea the the United States Constitution provides for publicly-funded (and publicly viewable) hardcore porn is an almost textbook example of liberal stupidity when it comes to rewriting the constitution - it would also seem that this practice should violate statutes outlawing the display of pornography to children.

The article does mention some sort of little partition that is supposed to keep the person sitting next to the pornscreen in question from seeing (but not from hearing) the action, but it doesn't say anything about keeping these sights and sounds away from kids on their way to aisle 114 for a copy of "Bitches, Ho's and Skeet: A Schoolyard Primer For Today's English" or whatever else it is they're reading these days. So who knows? Maybe they can see this stuff as they're going about their libraryesque business of locating books or maybe they can't.

Either way, it's an utterly stupid idea that accomplishes nothing but to illustrate that censorship wasn't such a bad idea after all, given that there's apparently no limit to which people liberal types, utterly incapable of ever saying 'enough's enough', will not sink if given the opportunity. 110

[Inigo Montoya]

Goddamned 1st Amendment. I suppose some freak will come along and say it protects dumbasses like Phelps and the KKK. We should do away with it. 111

[Starving Artist]

The amendment isn't the problem, idiotic interpretations of it are. 112

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

censorship wasn't such a bad idea after all

Nominees for the postion of "Doper to whom Starving Artist will henceforth mail his posts before placing them, with power to permit or prohibit the same" line up to the left. I call first dibs unless someone else makes a better case. 113

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

That's definitely the last zombie-themed party I attend then.

I understand the good intentions behind hate crime legislation; I just think it doesn't work in practice. IANA judge but I would no more punish someone more for killing a gay man than I would excuse them from the act for suffering "gay panic".

The additional punishment is not for the killing, but for the threat and intimidation directed against others. You think that terrorism should not be considered a crime: fine, and good luck trying to convince anybody else. 114

[Inigo Montoya]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

The amendment isn't the problem, idiotic interpretations of it are.

No, the amendment is pretty clear. Increasingly, the conservative element of our society is conflating personal taste with universal truth. Unfortunately for them, the homies who wrote up the constitution and its appendices counted universal truth AS one of their personal tastes. I think it's pretty clear they figured those who spoke freely AND wrongly would have that pointed out to them by the general populace. Funny, those who rant about Big Gubmint never seem to want to do away with the morality branch of the FCC. 115

[Zeriel]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Either way, it's an utterly stupid idea that accomplishes nothing but to illustrate that censorship wasn't such a bad idea after all, given that there's apparently no limit to which people liberal types, utterly incapable of ever saying 'enough's enough', will not sink if given the opportunity.

I was under the impression that it was LIBERALS who wanted to find all sorts of hidden meanings in the Constitution, while good solid CONSERVATIVES could read a sentence like "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." and take it word for word at face value.

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech". Now THERE'S a stupid Liberal idea. 116

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Publicly-funded hardcore porn, courtesy of the New York City library system.

The fact that Bill Donohue opposes something doesn't actually make it liberal, you know. I mean, it might be, but you haven't actually bothered to check, have you? 117

[Inigo Montoya]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

people liberal types

Missed this bit.

People like you are cuntwaffles who should live in small boxes in remote, mosquito-infested bogs where you don't need to interact with human beings. 118

[Enderw24]

Well it's been seven days and we've had two examples of stupid liberal* ideas.
Is that it? Are we done?


*Using a very liberal definition of liberal. 119

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by Zeriel

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech". Now THERE'S a stupid Liberal idea.

See, this is the problem right here. Watching pornogrophy isn't "speech". This is a clear perversion of the amendment's original intent, which was to insure that people could practice their religion or speak out against the government without fear of arrest, and it's a perfect example of how liberals in this country (and their willing lackeys in the judiciary) have indeed found hidden meanings in the constitution that were never intended.

For that matter, thanks to liberal stupidity (in keeping with the OP) the way that entire amendment has been interpreted would be unrecognizable to the people who wrote it. For example, another perversion is the religion thing, where simply keeping Congress from establishing a religion - like the amendment states - isn't enough. Oh, no. We've also got to make sure that no religious imagery may be found or viewed upon government property. The amedment was intended to prohibit Congress from establishing a church-state government such as had existed in Europe, and had nothing to do with "Merry Christmas" banners hanging from a goverment building or keeping the word "God" from appearing on our money.

There must not have been much liberalism about in the days when the Bill of Rights was passed, as the framers were clearly unaware of the hoops liberal judges and Supreme Court justices would leap through to make the Constitution say what they wanted it to.

Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya

People like you are cuntwaffles who should live in small boxes in remote, mosquito-infested bogs where you don't need to interact with human beings.

Yes, I'm already aware that people like you would like to see criticism of what you've wrought suppressed, in one way or another. And the fact that you can't comes much closer to the original intent of the 1st Amendment than does the freedom to view disgusting sexual images in public venues where anyone can happen upon them. "Mommy, why is that man eating that lady's poop and that other lady has his pee-pee in her mouth?" "Nevermind, dear, don't look. Let's just find your copy of 'Cinderella' and get the hell out of here."

What's next? Is jacking off is free speech? How long do you think it will be now until the New York Library system decides that jacking off to their computers' hardcore pornography is merely another expression of free speech?

And then you people wonder how someone like Sarah Palin finds such a large audience. 120

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by Enderw24

Well it's been seven days and we've had two examples of stupid liberal* ideas.
Is that it? Are we done?

Hardly. I could list one stupid liberal idea a day and keep this thread going for months. And that's just based on what I know already. There's no telling how long I could keep it going through active research.

I probably won't, because who needs the aggravation? But I could. Easily.

So don't kid yourself, there are a hell of a lot of stupid liberal ideas out there. Where this thread is concerned though, it's just a matter of whether the board's eight or ten conservative posters find it and decide to weigh in on them. 121

[Typo Negative]

I'll give you this one. It is a really stupid, idiotic thing to say.

Of course, people can watch whatever they want to on the computer. That is free speech. But that is on their own computer.

Got a feeling someone is gonna looking for a job real soon. 122

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

And that's just based on what I know already.

You don't actually know anything. You're a gullible child who is mislead by misinformation. 123

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

What's next? Is jacking off is free speech?

If so, I'm already several decades into history's longest filibuster. 124

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

That's definitely the last zombie-themed party I attend then.

I understand the good intentions behind hate crime legislation; I just think it doesn't work in practice. IANA judge but I would no more punish someone more for killing a gay man than I would excuse them from the act for suffering "gay panic".

I don't pretend to know how the laws are applied in practice, but in theory the victim being merely part of a protected subgroup isn't enough to qualify it as hate crime (nor is the "protected subgroup" part required, either - a white man killed because "all honkies need to hang !" is also the victim of a hate crime. It just so happens that xenophobic violence is quite more often performed by the larger in-group). The defining aspect of a hate crime is that the offence was not perpetrated against the given victim per se, but through the victim the offenders were attempting to target his entire demographic segment (or rather, they picked on the nearest guy from that segment, could have been anyone else).

Contrast to personnal grudges or robberies, which "only" target specific individuals or have a specific end goal: the threatened party is quite larger, as is the risk of re-offending if not kept behind bars since after all, if I killed Joe Fuckwit because he went and done me wrong, once out I'm presumably done. No more Joe Fuckwit to kill. If I killed Joe Fuckwitstein for being a Jew, there's plenty more where he came from when I'm back on the streets. 125

[The Hamster King]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

Adding a few extra years because it was a "hate crime" is a meaningless bolt-on.

Do feel the same about increased penalties for crimes directed at police officers?

In fact, it's insulting to victims of non-hate crimes: if killing someone because of their membership in a "protected" group (e.g. they're gay or black) is worse than killing someone because you have a personal grudge against them, doesn't that imply that the person killed due to the grudge potentially deserved it just a teensy bit?

No.

In any case, you misunderstand how hate crime laws work. The addition penalty is not for committing a crime against someone who happens to be a member of a particular group. It's for committing a crime against someone BECAUSE they're a member of a particular group. It's the MOTIVATION of the criminal that triggers the law, not the IDENTITY of the victim. 126

[elucidator]

Should have expected ol' Starkers to have a hadron about porno. And to a limited extent, he has a point, the First Amendment was not intended to protect porn. The Big One was intended to protect, especially and specifically, political speech. That does not mean that other expression is somehow excluded from any protection, only that it doesn't rise to the importance and significance of political speech. Political speech is of the very essence, the right to sway others to your opinion. So of course there is a special emphasis on its protection above others.

But that doesn't mean its open season on everything else. Our restrictions on commercial speech seem to have few if any boundaries. We freely permit the commercial blandishments for harmful activities, smoking, drinking, etc. Why then should we have restrictions to prevent people from producing or seeing pictures of people fucking?

The main reason we cannot outlaw porno is that we cannot define what it is, it is unjust to outlaw behavior that you cannot actually define, the potential criminal cannot be sure whether his actions are lawful or not. I know what the word "porno" means to me, I cringe to imagine what it might mean to you. To be perfectly frank, don't much like it. Erica Jong said it best, I think: "For the first ten minutes of a porn movie, all I want to do is fuck. After fifteen minutes, I never want to fuck again as long as I live."

It doesn't matter in the slightest whether or not the Founding Fuckups intended for the First Amendment to protect porno. 127

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by elucidator

The Big One was intended to protect, especially and specifically, political speech.

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.

Originally Posted by elucidator

That does not mean that other expression is somehow excluded from any protection...

And just where in the 1st Amendment is this little bit of exposition to be found? I can't seem to find it.

Originally Posted by elucidator

But that doesn't mean its open season on everything else. Our restrictions on commercial speech seem to have few if any boundaries. We freely permit the commercial blandishments for harmful activities, smoking, drinking, etc. Why then should we have restrictions to prevent people from producing or seeing pictures of people fucking?

Because people can choose not to smoke or drink by the simple expedient of not doing them. If pornography is freely and openly displayed in public venues, it is unavoidable. Plus, we have restrictions on "hate speech", which I'm sure you're four square behind. Where's your concern for unlimited 1st Amendment protections there? The fact of the matter is, people on your side of the aisle are perfectly happy to prohibit speech and actions that you disapprove of.

Originally Posted by elucidator

The main reason we cannot outlaw porno is that we cannot define what it is...

Oddly enough, we seemed able to define it throughout most of the country's history. And we're able to define it in terms of this discussion. And everybody knows what we're talking about when they hear the word. The argument that pornography can't be defined is a deceit promulgated by liberal ideology. And it's certainly more definable than something like hate speech. That argument simply doesn't hold water.

Originally Posted by elucidator

It doesn't matter in the slightest whether or not the Founding Fuckups intended for the First Amendment to protect porno.

Then there's no justification for using 1st Amendment protections to allow it, is there? 128

[woodstockbirdybird]

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.

Funny, I'd bet you have no problem with deciding how the ambiguous wording of the 2nd Amendment should be applied. 129

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Then there's no justification for using 1st Amendment protections to allow it, is there?

The Bill of Rights does not "allow" rights, it limits the power of goverment to infringe them. Only a conservative could misunderstand the Constitution so profoundly as to think rights come from the government. 130

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Should have expected ol' Starkers to have a hadron about porno.

I thought that was the point of porn . You know, that and supercolliding oneself afterwards. 131

[elucidator]

Doesn't have to be, unless you're operating from the premise that no speech is protected unless it is specifically approved by the Constitution. Why should we believe that? They took the trouble to exalt political speech above others, as it is an integral part of the political process of a democratic republic.

That doesn't mean you are free to declare images and speech illegal simply because you find it disgusting.

...Oddly enough, we seemed able to define it throughout most of the country's history. And we're able to define it in terms of this discussion. And everybody knows what we're talking about when they hear the word....

So easy even you can do it? Prove it. Define it, in objective, testable terms. Without scurrying to the shelter of unprovable assumptions, like "Everybody knows what porno is." They may think they do, as you do, but can you prove it? 132

[Zeriel]

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.

Could you point out to me where it says that, in bold, if you would?

"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."

I don't see the word "political" in there at all, SA. As a matter of fact, I don't see ANY adjectives modifying the word "speech". Surely you're not inventing it or inserting it deceitfully--that'd be frighteningly LIBERAL of you--so if you'd be so kind as to bold it and/or underline. My lying liberal eyes, naturally, must be shielding me from it.

'Luci, you're welcome to try too, since you appear to be going for some kind of appeasement strategy to get him down a different alley. 133

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by elucidator

So easy even you can do it? Prove it. Define it, in objective, testable terms. Without scurrying to the shelter of unprovable assumptions, like "Everybody knows what porno is." They may think they do, as you do, but can you prove it?

I may not be able to define it, but I'll know it when I see it.


Could you please pass the the picture of the blonde again? Gotta double or triple check that one. 134

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by woodstockbirdybird

Funny, I'd bet you have no problem with deciding how the ambiguous wording of the 2nd Amendment should be applied.

Oh SNAP!

(Except as we all know it's not really very ambiguous at all, it's very specific, what with the "well-regulated militia" and everything) 135

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

The fact of the matter is, people on your side of the aisle are perfectly happy to prohibit speech and actions that you disapprove of.

Only the intellectually dishonest ones. 136

[Zeriel]

Originally Posted by Stoid

Oh SNAP!

(Except as we all know it's not really very ambiguous at all, it's very specific, what with the "well-regulated militia" and everything)

Don't MAKE me define "well-regulated", "militia", and "dependent clauses" again. 137

[elucidator]

The puppy is stuffed into the blender, our fingers hover over the switch, you got one minute or its pooch purée.... 138

[Really Not All That Bright]

Stupid liberal idea: wasting breath arguing with idiots. We're all guilty of it. 139

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Should have expected ol' Starkers to have a hadron about porno.

Then your expectation would have been in error. I have no problem with pornography at all as long as it is deliberately sought out and viewed in the privacy of one's own home. I draw the line at having the sights and sounds of it being broadcast in a public venue where people have no choice but to encounter it whether they want to see it or not. (Also, given the hysteria going on these days with regard to children (i.e., anyone a day under 18) and sex, why is it that no one in this thread seems particularly disturbed by the idea of children watching and listening to some of the most vile shit human beings can dream up, and at an age where they cannot possibly comprehend or understand it?)

I also quarrel with the library's stance that they will not prohibit people from looking at "legal" material on library computers, as thought they are not about to deprive someone of what he or she has a legal right to. Funny, cigarettes and alcohol are legal, but I bet you couldn't light up or pour yourself a scotch in one.
So we have specious constitutional justifications and we have specious legal justifications, all cooked up by smarter-than-thou liberals in the New York Library system. Thus, by adding "smarter-than-thou liberals" to "specious" and "specious", you get "stupid". Thus qualifying the matter for inclusion in this thread. 140

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

...Thus, by adding "smarter-than-thou liberals" to "specious" and "specious", you get "stupid"...

This absolutely must appear on your first Greatest Hits compilation. It is classic Starkers. 141

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

I draw the line at having the sights and sounds of it being broadcast in a public venue where people have no choice but to encounter it whether they want to see it or not.

Nothing to say re: the sight, but I'm pretty sure terminals inside a library are muted/don't have speakers. I'm sure you've been shushed before by a (possibly hot) librarian who gave you the evil eye for daring to clear your throat inside her temple of knowledge.

(Also, given the hysteria going on these days with regard to children (i.e., anyone a day under 18) and sex, why is it that no one in this thread seems particularly disturbed by the idea of children watching and listening to some of the most vile shit human beings can dream up, and at an age where they cannot possibly comprehend or understand it?)

Possibly because the hysteria comes almost entirely from your side of the political spectrum ? It's the "morals and values" crowd, not the librulz, who nuked Janet Jackson from orbit you understand.

Funny, cigarettes and alcohol are legal, but I bet you couldn't light up or pour yourself a scotch in one.

Cigarettes aren't legal in public buildings, and at a guess I'd vouch public inebriation is a no-no in NYC as well (hence the brown paper bags - now *that* is, I'll grant you, retarded). 142

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

...(possibly hot) librarian who gave you the evil eye for daring to clear your throat inside her temple of knowledge....

Thus spoiling any hope of getting into her stacks, or her reserved collection. 143

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

Nothing to say re: the sight, but I'm pretty sure terminals inside a library are muted/don't have speakers. I'm sure you've been shushed before by a (possibly hot) librarian who gave you the evil eye for daring to clear your throat inside her temple of knowledge.

That was the case when I was a kid. Everyone was supposed to speak in whispers and as little as possible. My library experiences the last ten or fifteen years or so has been that most people speak in normal speaking voices and with nary a dirty look...not even from the hot librarians. At any rate, a woman quoted in the article says that she could hear what was going on despite some sort of extendable privacy screen between her and the computer next to her. Do libraries these days allow earphones, perhaps? I've been in some over the last few years but never paid much attention to what was going on on the public computers.

Originally Posted by Kobal2

Possibly because the hysteria comes almost entirely from your side of the political spectrum ?

Actually, quite a lot of it is visible on this very board.

Originally Posted by Kobal2

Cigarettes aren't legal in public buildings, and at a guess I'd vouch public inebriation is a no-no in NYC as well (hence the brown paper bags - now *that* is, I'll grant you, retarded).

Then pornography can be "not legal in public buildings" as well, yes, no?

The point is, the New York City library system is not engaging in some crusade to guarantee people access to what is legally available elsewhere; they're using porn's legality to justify what they want to do in the first place, which is to assert their distorted version of moral superiority over the masses. I am firmly convinced that 90% of liberalism is really just a way for people to think they're morally superior to the masses. That's the only way a lot of this shit makes sense. I have little doubt that if porn was old school and freely available everywhere, liberals would find some grounds to oppose it. 144

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Then pornography can be "not legal in public buildings" as well, yes, no?

It can. But it's not. So until it becomes, it will remain not. That's how laws work, savvy ? 145

[Zeriel]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Then your expectation would have been in error. I have no problem with pornography at all as long as it is deliberately sought out and viewed in the privacy of one's own home. I draw the line at having the sights and sounds of it being broadcast in a public venue where people have no choice but to encounter it whether they want to see it or not. (Also, given the hysteria going on these days with regard to children (i.e., anyone a day under 18) and sex, why is it that no one in this thread seems particularly disturbed by the idea of children watching and listening to some of the most vile shit human beings can dream up, and at an age where they cannot possibly comprehend or understand it?)

I don't know about the status of New York, but in the three public libraries I frequent that have computers:

1) unattended children are not permitted in the adult computer lab. Children's area computers are kiosked to only show internal library resources.
2) there are no speakers.
3) there are partitions/carrels, such that you are only going to see what's on someone else's screen if you're deliberately trying to do so.

Given THOSE constraints, where is the problem?

Also, still waiting for you to show me where the First Amendment says "political". I mean, this liberal astigmatism is getting so bad, I wonder what other random adjectives I'm not seeing in there.

"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." 146

[Zeriel]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

I am firmly convinced that 90% of liberalism is really just a way for people to think they're morally superior to the masses.

Even if that's true, that's still a better ratio than your posts here, 99% of which appear to be a way for you to feel you're morally superior to liberals.

That's the only way a lot of this shit makes sense. I have little doubt that if porn was old school and freely available everywhere, liberals would find some grounds to oppose it.

Er. In what world is porn NOT old-school and freely available pretty much everywhere? Hell, with all the smartphones kids have these days, the internet is in their pocket. 147

[elucidator]

What is porno? Define it, in clear, empirical terms. Zero points for self-referential, subjective criteria, it must be objective and definitive. Double dog dare you. 148

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Zeriel

Hell, with all the smartphones kids have these days, the internet is in their pocket.

I'm sure they're just happy to see you. 149

[marshmallow]

Returning to the OP, and this is more of a "stupid liberal idea of the century," but liberals think it's not only practical but moral to bomb people until they like you or do what you say. Forever. 150