TylerHastings Posted May 1, 2011 Posted May 1, 2011 I have to agree, it's very tempting to deliver a 'Gibbs slap to the back of the head' just to get him to start thinking....(blatant and shameless NCIS plug) At least it's not ME getting the 'Gibbs slap to the back of the head' for once!
DwayneEMTP Posted May 1, 2011 Posted May 1, 2011 At least it's not ME getting the 'Gibbs slap to the back of the head' for once! You are coming along just fine brother! I never thought I'd see it...But I'm certainly happy to.... Dwayne
Just Plain Ruff Posted May 1, 2011 Posted May 1, 2011 So since some fire departments and the federal government get federal funding, shouldn't I be able to watch porn there too. To the extent of it being a first amendment right, shouldn't any place that I go, shouldn't I be able to watch porn or whatever I want since it's a federally protected (1st amendment) right? I should be free from fear of prosecution if I watch porn in lets say a walmart or a starbucks? It's the first amendment I mean?
NYCEMS9115 Posted May 1, 2011 Author Posted May 1, 2011 Just because the Courts views it as lawful or something just. As citizens we can not disagree? Quoting that the USSC Ruled it; is irrelevant to the Court of Public Opinion. We are members of this unsanctioned Court. All of us have that voice; that opinion; it maybe not be mainstream but it is still an opinion. Our opinions stem from our values, our core beliefs, & our experiences. Many of you agree with the USSC; that porn (happy; it's has been lower cased) is a right of an individual to view in the Public Library. Some do not. Just because it's lawful doesn't necessarily mean it's right.
Lone Star Posted May 2, 2011 Posted May 2, 2011 (edited) Just because the Courts views it as lawful or something just. As citizens we can not disagree? Quoting that the USSC Ruled it; is irrelevant to the Court of Public Opinion. We are members of this unsanctioned Court. All of us have that voice; that opinion; it maybe not be mainstream but it is still an opinion. Our opinions stem from our values, our core beliefs, & our experiences. Many of you agree with the USSC; that porn (happy; it's has been lower cased) is a right of an individual to view in the Public Library. Some do not. Just because it's lawful doesn't necessarily mean it's right. I've taken the liberty to bold a couple things in the above post. The whole point is this: we may all be members of the Court of Public Opinion, but to date, it IS an 'unsanctioned court', therefore you can bitch all you want...it's not going to change a thing! Any 'ruling' from the Court of public Opinion may be supported by members of the general public, but unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, it has no power, therefore any 'ruling' it (the Court of Public Opinion) may hand down is irrelevant! The next logical question has got to be, "Why do you keep insisting that your personal values and morals should usurp constitutional law?". Ultimately, the end result is this: If nudity (regardless of WHERE it's viewed) offends you, then by all means exercise your right to not view it! Your argument is falling apart fast, and it appears that you're trying to grasp at straws to try to save your sinking ship....(which is why you're clouding the conversation by drawing imaginary corollaries between the 'porn issue' and the actions of that former chief). *edited to correct spelling error Edited May 2, 2011 by Lone Star
TylerHastings Posted May 2, 2011 Posted May 2, 2011 To the original poster: It seems as though you’re trying to foist your personal views on everyone in this thread. While you personally do not feel that pornography is suitable for viewing in the public library, apparently those who set the rules in said library do not agree. While I do agree that pornography should not be accessible on computers owned by a governmental agency, I don’t feel that we should be limiting computer access by the general public (such as at the public library). Just because an individual CAN access ‘adult images’ on the computers at the public library, most will not access them there, simply because of their personal views. Now addressing your link to the story about the fire chief: The only opinion I can offer has already been offered; you’re comparing apples to oranges. What he was doing is considered harassment, pure and simple. I offer this fact based on the legal definition of harassment which is stated above by Lone Star. Now, I call into play a little personal experience. My father was a Judge, who had a case regarding what one party felt was pornography because a man was taking pictures of a woman sunbathing in her own back yard. The woman, who was the subject of the pictures, attempted to sue the man for civil damages. The suit was dismissed due to the photographer’s attorney discovering that no legal definition had hereto been set forth, and there was no case law covering such a suit. Now, to let you know about these photos… The woman was topless, laying face down on a chaise lounge. The only thing visible was her bare back and her covered behind. A dictionary definition doesn't cut it legally. The courts have argued this repeatedly and they can't even agree how to define it. So as reputable a resource as are Misters Merriam and Webster may be what you cited is not a legally bound definition. Just because the Courts views it as lawful or something just. As citizens we can not disagree? Quoting that the USSC Ruled it; is irrelevant to the Court of Public Opinion. We are members of this unsanctioned Court. All of us have that voice; that opinion; it maybe not be mainstream but it is still an opinion. Our opinions stem from our values, our core beliefs, & our experiences. Many of you agree with the USSC; that porn (happy; it's has been lower cased) is a right of an individual to view in the Public Library. Some do not. Just because it's lawful doesn't necessarily mean it's right. While the Court of Public Opinion may have a different view that what the U.S. Supreme Court has, since it’s an unsanctioned court; as Lone Star said, it’s opinions are irrelevant and calling attention to them is a moot point. 2
NYCEMS9115 Posted May 10, 2011 Author Posted May 10, 2011 I can't argue with what's right. As it's legal to watch porn during a Children Reading Time at the Library. It's my legal right to disagree even though it's legal. I'm sorry if I'm placing a personal opinion. I haven't research why it's legal because I care not to know why the USSC ruled it legal. They are people with opinions; Pornography in the Library is protected under the 1st Amendment. They are people who feel that Porn in the Library it's protected under the U.S. Constitution. Yes, this is just my opinion. You can disagree. Not trying to change anyone's mind.
NYCEMS9115 Posted May 10, 2011 Author Posted May 10, 2011 (edited) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90164,00.html http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/6213216832.html Edited May 10, 2011 by NYCEMS9115
Recommended Posts