Let's see if I understand this correctly . . . I'm in a public library, and if someone looking over my shoulder is offended by a web site I'm viewing on a computer, the library can request that I stop looking at that web site? Suppose I'm a student majoring in paleontology, and I'm viewing a web site about evolution. So, if somebody is offended by what I'm viewing, I can be told to get off from the web site? Now that really sucks!
Interesting case - just finished Con Law II last semester and, as I understand it, the "avert your eyes" rationale doesn't apply in the area of obscenity. I suspect the issue here is: the library provides Internet access, but restricts the sites that can be viewed - even by adults. This, of course, can produce Constitutional problems. Why can't this library simply provide more seclusion/privacy for adult Internet users? The alternative might be to remove Internet access entirely.
We can never find justice at the hands of corrupt judges. (See YouTube videos) Judge to Judge on Illegal Payments to Judges / Evil Triangle of Court Corruption / Richard Fine / Dr Shirley Moore /SBX 211. The fight to end this title wave of corruption in our country must start with the corrupt judges. We can not bring evidence of corruption to corrupt judges. Los Angeles Superior Court judges are illegally and unconstitutionally taking 50,000.00 each for a total of 23 million per year.
Yep one of my speakers is toast figured I would just switch to mono but for some reason with all the options I have switching from stereo to mono doesn't seem to be one of them :(
Constitutional Rights? What do you know about the constitution? Have you ever read it? If you have then you clearly did not understand it or comprehend it. Did you sign the document? Your direct blood relatives sign it? Then it dosent apply to you, you have no right to claim your constitutional rights have been infringed on because you are not a party to the Constitution, PERIOD! Don't believe me? Read the Supreme courts decision on Paddleford Fay & Co vs Savannah (Ref 14 Georgia 438) WAKE UP!!
one fascist viewer spews some nonsense about constitutional rights that he clearly doesnt care to know what they are or what is a right or what COnstitution really says. "Liberals" uniformed lying fascist reatrds they are dont know one dman thing about the constituion and are to faggotly illiterate mentally and spirtually to read it.
RIGHT TO BEAR AMRS RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY(Hear me Hitlery and leftist witchhunters), STATES RIGHTS Something leftist crooks and fiends are all about violating.
Call me a biggot but I have seen to many examples of Black Politicians trampling on our rights with their hubris and malavolent antics....just google Sheila Jackson-Lee or Maxine Waters....I guess when you grow up with a government tit in your mouth you are forever tainted with Nanny State Ideology.
More evidence that Black Elected Officials not only disregard our US Constitution but don't even try to learn it. Conyers for example: He claimed there was a "GOOD AND WELFARE Clause" that justifies OBAMACARE.
GOD DAAAAAAAMN WTF IS HER PROBLEM!!!!! Is she trying to take away everyones rights that the founding fathers have set up in order to PROTECT us from the GOVERNMENT in times of tyranny including making the GOVERNMENT know what it's limits are which they have continiously ignored!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Government is here to make us FREE and to live our God givin rights of Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness why is it attacking us to make us like slaves of the government?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
@Sethern53 The De Jure form of Government that was vacated in 1944 was replaced with the Corporate De Facto form of Government that is in place now. Read Title 28 USC 3002 Subsection 15-A and read the definition of "United States" If you still dont understand it read the Supreme Courts decision in the Paddleford Fay & Co vs Savannah- (Ref 14 Georgia 438) It clearly tells you individuals have NO RIGHT to complain by suit in court as to a violation of the Constitution, You are not a party to it!!
The woman is BEYOND ignorant. It makes me very sad when I sit and think about the people running our city, they are so idiotic. Excuse my language, lets send her ASS to the unemployment line next election.
im a conservative and an atheist and i must stay the ACLU like this issue of the free speech in library i get but trying to obtain classifed photos of terrorists in gitmo being interogated should remain secret in order to protect our troops overseas and us
although I immediately dislike the woman because she's part of Cali's state gov't, it sounded as if she said "screw people's constitutional RIGHT" notice that right is singular. If she had said rights in the plural, then it would be about rights in general, but if it's singular then it is specific so she may have said something like "Screw folks' constitutional right to marry their hampster."
I'm afraid you haven't got it right. United States v. ALA 593 U.S. 194 (2003) established that it's not unconstitutional for Congress to compel a library that accepts federal funding to install filters meant to screen out UNprotected speech (obscenity). It follows that a state agency can do the same, since public libraries get most of their funding from them. So, while I'm against forcing libraries and librarians to filter the internet, it's not unconstitutional to enact such a regulation.
Out of curiousity, what did she say immediately afterwards? Obviously, those first four words are mind-boggling, but I want to be sure that's the full story.
Your rights end at the tip of your nose and my rights begin at the tip of my nose. YOU do not have the right to view porn where my children can see it. THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTE RIGHTS!!! Yelling fire in a theatre is not protected free speech. Grow up and live like a civilized man!!!!
Actually you can yell fire in a theatre. It's just that you are responsible to the owner of the theatre for all the business she lost when you yelled fire.
The Bill of Rights has a preamble. The preamble of the Bill of Rights essentially says that the first 10 Amendments are declaratory clauses; they can't be repealed.
As Michael Badnarik said, "The Constitution doesn't give me the freedom of speech. I have the freedom of speech because you're not big enough to shut me up."
Clearly, you do not understand Supreme Court decisions. It is against the law to yell fire in a theatre because it endangers lives. Geez!!!
You are using rational arguements against legal ones and that never, never, ever works..Also, your right to view something I consider offensive ends at the tip of your nose, when I can see it. Another Supreme Court decision. Its almost as if you have had no legal training at all and are winging ti. Thats why the ACLU laughed at you.
I suspect the post refers to Schenck v. United States (1919). Brandenburg v. Ohio overturned Schenck. Branenburg was a departure from earlier rulings such as Schenck and Whitney v. California.
I disagree with the notion that my rights end at my nose. Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "the right to swing my fists ends where the other man's nose begins." This is a quote, not a supreme Court decision.
Furthermore, have you got proof that yelling fire in a theatre is "against the law?"
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Maybe you consider the words of the 4th Amendment offensive. By your logic, I would not have the right to view these words on a public library internet connection.
In the Chicago Public Library, we laugh at people like you. People like you actually think they can tap internet porn viewers on the shoulder to get them to turn off their porn and expect the internet porn viewer to not be offended that someone like you had the nerve to disrupt their internet viewing.
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic (Schenck v. United States).
Where do you see that it's "against the law" to yell fire in a crowded theatre?
What would the material be, you aren't stating the type of material. Constitutionally protected material, for the most part, wouldn't be offensive. I don't really believe porn is defended by the constitution, I don't think any sort of hate speech is protected.
It's not the Constitution's job to protect our rights; it's our job to protect the Constitution.
As Michael Badnarik put it, "The Constitution doesn't give me the freedom of speech, I have the freedom of speech because you're not big enough to shut me up."
Punishing someone because you were offended by her speech does more harm than her speech could ever do. This is essentially Thomas Jefferson's argument for the 1st Amendment.
Good video... First off, the const restrains Big gov from mandating these types of laws, but state and local government can create them, with judicial oversight to their constitutionality... It was not appropriate for her to make those remarks, but it is a judge's job to check and balance biased lawmaking, and also those who vote next election cycle...
dido/amen! im from new Hampshire our moto is live "free or die"kinda like "give me liberty or give me death" im not closed minded at all i can understand a suicide bomber becuse hes fighting 4 those rights that he isnt given.. we already got them but are doing every thing we can to elect the nice-looking rockstar politicians who "screw" are good ol constitution right up as long as there rich and popular im ashamed of the fact that the land i love doesn't exist anymore.
I don't think people should be looking at porn in the library, but I think the libraries themselves should make their own policies. The gov't shouldn't have a say in it.
time to wake up people theres proof out there as in this video that they don't care and will continue to not care about any of you...me your neighbor or yourself. Its pretty simple to understand just excepting it...but we have to learn and understand and all agree cause once we realize there are more of us than them and fight back with 300 million plus voices then the governments decision to do whatever it wants is SCREWED!!!!
Like Bush Sr said, "the constitution is just a g*d damn* piece of paper
Sware an oath to uphold it and lie tells alot about a man. Might as well stop signing bills (if by ones own confession) its not anything substantial, just paper
lol Try telling the IRS filing a 1040 is just another *g*d damn piece of paper (which it really is)even though theres no law that mandates you file. Gestopo treatment for breaking a non existing law.
child molesters on porn sites and your kids are right across the table.. sounds ok to me... idiots...and the ACLU is fighting to get inmates sex changes.. and got them hormone therapy now with your money...
Actually, if u mean the ACLU of Wisconsin case in Sundstrom v. Frank, the inmates were already getting hormones when the state passed a law targeting them and cutting off treatment even though medical experts agreed that blocking people from access to hormone treatment after they have been on the treatment is especially dangerous and could cause life-threatening damage. See
Again, as I pointed out and you did not address, in Sundstrom v. Frank, the inmates were already getting hormones when the state passed a law targeting them and cutting off treatment even though medical experts agreed that blocking people from access to hormone treatment after they have been on the treatment is especially dangerous and could cause life-threatening damage. See
i didnt answer because i dont care about them...my advice to them is to stay out of jail...my oppinion is in jail you have the right to eat sleep and work on the chain gang thats it.. that way thay would not be so popular ...as in 1 in 10 americans is in jail because we are to nice .....
Regardless of your "oppinion," the US Constitution determines the rights of prisoners and, despite losing some rights as punishment for their crimes, prisoners still retain other rights and, like every other person, they deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. Having visited many prisons, I can assure u the problem is not that "we are to nice." The way a society treats prisoners should reflect the values of the society not the values of the prisoners
I can't believe a gov't official would actually be able to to say "screw folk's rights" without hitting a bottle of strong liquor... this is absolutely outrageous...
Actually, the policy at issue never mentions "porn" but gives the gov power to prohibit:
"subject matter that would interfere with the maintenance of a safe, welcoming and comfortable environment"
That's way too broad/vague and could cover a wealth of political, religious, medical, and other material, basically anything that could offend anybody. Its so clearly unconstitutional that no one from the library even tried to legally justify it
That is why you should not vote for ignorant council members, they do that kind of shit all the time here in Austin. THey need to get sued and you should do it. I am sure the ACLU is good for something, so you the resources afforded to you and call them. If I lived there I sure the hell would!
After september 11, 2001, I was viewing websites that did not agree with the official story. Someone had hacked into the website and replaced a picture of the WTC with an extremely offensive picture of three old men performing homosexual acts on each other. I was very embarrassed and immediately told the library staff. I'm all for decency in public, but SCREW the CONSTITUTION? I'd rather see porn on street corners like I saw in Spain.
First of all, we do not have any constitutional rights. The constitution is only a document concerning our servants and the bill of rights does not grant Men and Women their rights, the bill of rights is part of the contract our servants agreed to uphold with their oath of office. You've proof on video here that the woman broke her oath of office, so get her thrown out!
are you kidding me? the constitution is based on philosophical principals. man was born free and given free will. that piece of paper makes sure that is respected.
That piece of paper binds the officers of the government which it creates to respect those rights, it does not grant any rights and does not even purport to.
let me put it this way: forget the consitution, democracy and pretend we live in the stone age: it is not natural for someone to have parameteres as to what he wants to do (the obvious exceptions would be those that impose on what someone else wants to do). the constitution is there to make sure that those natural rights are respected. so i guess tecnically you're right it doesn't "grant" anything. it RECOGNIZES that.
Constitutional rights are "screwed" all of the time esspecially in smaller towns. I'm shocked they could get away with it there but where I live rights are constantly ignored and nobody says or does anything about it.
On the note of "block or stop looking over the shoulder" I think its clear that people should learn to avert their eyes from "offensive material" just like how i shall avert my eyes from some of the less thought out posts. I dont like them so thusly I wont look.
So, not being allowed access to porn at a public library is a violation of one constitutional rights? So, by that logic, me getting in trouble at work for taking a pornographic magazine there is a violating of my constituational rights, and the fact that regular (noncable) channel don't show porn is also a violation.
Actually, the policy at issue never mentions "porn" but gives the gov power to prohibit:
"subject matter that would interfere with the maintenance of a safe, welcoming and comfortable environment"
That's way too broad/vague and could cover a wealth of political, religious, medical, and other material, basically anything that could offend anybody. Its so clearly unconstitutional that no one from the library even tried to legally justify it
The pro-Constitution presidential candidates as I understand them are: Ron Paul(R); Chris Dodd(D); Dennis Kucinich(?) Corporations support multiple candidates, why shouldn't we? That will give the pro-Constitution arguments more of a chance to be heard.
the problems with filters, is that if they block words from being viewed, for example, if they Filter the word "sex" and some person tries to find poetry by Anne Sexton, she would not be found.
I think bush can be quoted as saying something similar about the constitution. Basically, noone cares about constitutional rights anymore. the president swearing in to uphold is a big joke.
Part of the problem is that the corporate/economic leaders of america have alot of involevment in government. And all of the big time news networks, are owned by those corporte leaders of america. They can't report thing's if people higher up the ladder don't want them reported.
I wonder how Councilwoman Pannel would react if she was discharged from her elected position without any recourse. Would she find this a violation of her constitutional rights or would she not care since, screw the folks anyway?
#1: Yes. They should at least have it in local news.
#2: The gov't should have no authority in banning. The only people who should be able to decide that are the librarians and the people who run the library.
#1: Yes. They should at least have it in local news.
#2: The gov't should have no authority in banning. The only people who should be able to decide that are the librarians and the people who run the library.
Actually, the policy gives the gov power to prohibit
"subject matter that would interfere with the maintenance of a safe, welcoming and comfortable environment"
That's way too broad/vague and could cover a wealth of political, religious, medical, and other material, basically anything that could offend anybody. Ive been delayed, but I'm still hoping to have another vid on this topic soon
I was reading the .pdf and page 26, 7.1; Attachment A from the Jan 24, 2002 meeting outlines that what they are wanting to filter is porn. Do you have an issue with them filtering porn sites?
The filter controversy from 2002 was mainly resolved by a recent US Supreme Court case that basically said u can have filters if u immediately remove them for adults. That was 2002. You can see the policy I was talking about in BOLD type on page 55 of the PDF. As u can see it is a broad, unconstitutional grant of authority to gov officials to ban almost anything offensive.
"The filter controversy from 2002 was mainly resolved by a recent US Supreme Court case that basically said u can have filters if u immediately remove them for adults"
"Although we are disappointed that the Court upheld a law that is unequivocally a form of censorship, there is a silver lining. The Justices essentially rewrote the law to minimize its effect on adult library patrons," said Chris Hansen, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU...
Um, I actually read the opinion and the statute, and there is no modification in it whatsoever. Justice Breyer's concurrence makes it clear: the Court applied a balancing test between the statute's attempt to serve a compelling interest and *some* issues involving heightened scrutiny, but the law as it stands is perfectly constitutional. The law already provided for the filters being removed on request "for bona fide research purposes." It sounds like whomever you're quoting is in lalaland.
I don't think it should be so broad, but I definintly agree on a rather narrow issue: pornography should not be allowed to be viewed in the public library while on the internet. However, I don't think I'd go any further than that.
Liberalviewer, I think this is the first time I've really disagreed with you. I fully believe that the current Administration is trying to roll back all our freedoms, including freedom of speech, and we have to stop them. But to promote allowing someone to watch porn in a public facility, especially with little kids roaming around, is silly and is only going to further deepen the wedge between "liberals" and "conservatives."
I never mentioned porn in my vid because porn is not mentioned in the policy. The policy gives the gov power to prohibt "subject matter that would interfere with the maintenance of a safe, welcoming and comfortable environment"
That's way too broad and vague and there are better ways 2 protect kids. I'll have a vid on this in next couple days
I agree that that is too broad. I thought I remembered something about this case being about a guy watching porn in the library. I think that should be off-limits, but I agree that that wording is too broad. Thanks for replying.
Well, if there are controls on whom can sell or rent pornographic material in your municipality, then your municipality can claim that the library is not licensed to provide this material to you and that providing this material is not within the library's mandate. A person's sexual gratification is not the city's responsibility and this material is of questionable educational value.
One of the attributes of an open mind is seeing all sides of an issue. It's hard to see clearly while standing on the pedestal of rigteousness.
We don't know what she said and in what context, since her comments were edited. Would have been better if you had not denied us our Constitutional access to them.
I'd be outraged if they did anything that threatens net neutrality, but I'm not so sure this should be protected. I remember seeing someone at a public library years ago using the internet to view porn. After FIFTEEN minutes they finally told him to turn it off and leave. Now, how far do these measures go to prevent people from using material? Wouldn't it just be for cases like this? I didn't see one person upset they moved the public perv, nor would I ever ask them to stop from doing so.
Don't most people that look at porn in libraries masturbate while they are doing it? Is public masurbation a constitutionally protested form of expression?
One more thing about the idiots who voted to restrict access. I live in a thoroughly GOP town and our library wouldn't even consider doing that. Why? because it IS a clear infringement on the rights of the users of a public institution. Most PC video screens here are enclosed in mini-cubicles which is an easy fix anywhere... if you see what's on the screen it's because you're TRYING to see what's on screen. Whose fault is that?
Could you post contact info for the Sac P L Authority, and Bonnie "Pennel"? Anyone syaing that is a disgrace. That an African American woman would do so is just pathetic.. imagine if Strom Thurmond just said about the Voting Rights Act "screw their right to vote". Oh wait, he DID say that. What an idiot this woman is.
Protecting childern is all good, but at what cost? First off the government is not responsible for protecting your childern. That's your job, do it! If I wanna look at inappropriate material, that's my GOD given right! A Library is a temple of knowledge. Should we censor knowledge? Just because we find it inappropriate?
What has any of this have to do with pedophilia? And even, if it did, it's the right of ANYONE to use the resources of a public library. That's whatthe word PUBLIC means.
Well...library is a public place, on one side. On the other, we all have a right to watch what ever it is we want, as long as it is legal.
What shocked me the most is the fact that an elected politician would even say something that "screw the constitutional rights of the people" and there isnt a national scandal.
I think the solution to this would be to put the public computers in a some kind of booth with a door or curtain. People can't look over your shoulder if there's something obstructing their view.
Anyway, how did you get this footage if it didn't get covered on the local stations? Surly it must have gotten SOME coverage...
As for the restrictions thing: I think some things really shouldn't be done in the public. Like I think someone mentioned porn... that would be unsuitable for the public... But drawing lines is difficult. Pornography itself is defined by the "I'll know it when I see it" thing... I'm just wondering HOW offencive things have to be.
Sorry to comment again, but what did they mean by "stop people from viewing"? Did they mean physically stop them, or to block certain sites? Because if it is the former, they really don't have the personnel to do that.
You are really intelligent and eloquent and clear-thinking. We need you in leadership in this country. I am so glad you posted this- it is appalling! It is not up to the government, whether on a local or national level, to decide what we absorb, it is our individual responsibility!
Sometimes the camera catches people say what they REALLY think. It can be shocking! The bigger issue is how long before we totally reform the representative government process so EVERYONE can vote on issues via the Internet? Use public library Internet access as a polling place for those who do not have a device. We should have a referendum on the war and every other critical issue and let the people vote via the Internet!!!
A politician's condemnation of free speech should be given air time on the news.
Porn may be disgusting to the majority. But it's protected speech, and it should be.
Tolerance of speech in public institutions is essential to a pluralistic society, as our founding fathers foresaw. Without it, there can be only tyranny.
I think this is the first time you've appeared in a vid, LV. :-)
The fact that the local media didn't report more thoroughly on this matter is disturbing. Perhaps you should send your vid to the local TV news and/or put a letter into the editor of your local newspapers. Apology or not, any public official who says "screw your constitutional rights," needs to be exposed to the larger public's scrutiny.
1. Is it wrong of me to assume that, since LV didn't mention a party affiliation, council woman Bonnie is a Democrat?
2. I'm not so sure having the government take money from me at the threat of gunpoint to buy books for other people to read is constitutional. Let's get over that hurdle first.
I agree that if the content/material being viewed on a public library computer is constitutionally protected then our public libraries should not impose their restrictions that violate this protection.
Tough call on the policy/law. One's rights should not be limited, but a public library isn't the place to be surfing porn. I'd never vote for a law restricting constitutional rights of adults.
The easy call is this woman should be removed from office, either by the next election, or by some recall or process in place in Sacramento. This video of her statement needs to be viewed by as many of her constituents as possible so that they can make an informed decision as soon as possible.
From the sound of it, porn was all they were talking about - but what is porn? It's devilishly hard to define.
GWB and his administration consider dissent to be treason. They've said it often enough. Give 'em any powers over free speech and they'll grab for more.
Damn if the canadian charter of rights and freedoms were so easily disposed of, I'd be looking to move, but not before I showed my distaste for it all.
Unfortunately, most locally elected officials have never attended a civics class and are expected, by their constituents, to make decisions based on their own personal views (assuming these are in line with the community). You seldom find people well versed in the law at the local levels, and that being the case, a hearing such as this should have been presided over by a committee of constitutional experts.
It's hardly surprising that a black, nearly inarticulate locally elected from a PC wary metropolitan area doesn't get criticized for a statement she made on local access cable. After all, the US attorney general explains to congress that the constitution has no guarantee of habeas corpus and there's hardly a peep about that. Did it help him that he's Hispanic but plays the role of a stupid white guy?
As far as the media is concerned, even most local stations are owned by large corporations, who dictate the stance of the stations. And said corporations believe in cooperation with goverment, not offending them. Reporters have grown too lazy to research stories on their own, they depend on press releases from goverment officials.
I think the policy the library wants to adopt is reasonable, as long as it is only referring to pornography. I can understand the concern that their provision of security screens may change what people are viewing in the library. The only other alternative is they provide everyone who wants to use the computer with a completely enclosed cubical (or not have the screens).
That's were I would draw the line yeah. I don't believe there is any justification for looking at porn on the internet and expecting everyone else to pay.
We pay so that people can read novels about retarded love stories, monsters, how Jesus can save you, and all kinds of ridiculous things that don't appeal to everyonee, so why are vidoes of sex where to draw the line? That's what I don't understand. On the internet you get access to actual grotesque things; sex is not grotesque. Unless you're christian and not married... just kidding.
I draw the line there because the purpose of porn is only to stimulate sexual arousal. The library isn't the place to be sexually aroused. The purpose of looking at actual grotesque things(tm) is hopefully to do something to stop them?
AAAAAAAAAHAAHAH
virindi1 1 month ago
Let's see if I understand this correctly . . . I'm in a public library, and if someone looking over my shoulder is offended by a web site I'm viewing on a computer, the library can request that I stop looking at that web site? Suppose I'm a student majoring in paleontology, and I'm viewing a web site about evolution. So, if somebody is offended by what I'm viewing, I can be told to get off from the web site? Now that really sucks!
BigFatHeretic 6 months ago
Its not hard to put up privacy filters on screens or even a partition so that people cannot see what others are viewing on computer screens.
BigMobe 10 months ago
Interesting case - just finished Con Law II last semester and, as I understand it, the "avert your eyes" rationale doesn't apply in the area of obscenity. I suspect the issue here is: the library provides Internet access, but restricts the sites that can be viewed - even by adults. This, of course, can produce Constitutional problems. Why can't this library simply provide more seclusion/privacy for adult Internet users? The alternative might be to remove Internet access entirely.
jpsartrean 1 year ago
We can never find justice at the hands of corrupt judges. (See YouTube videos) Judge to Judge on Illegal Payments to Judges / Evil Triangle of Court Corruption / Richard Fine / Dr Shirley Moore /SBX 211. The fight to end this title wave of corruption in our country must start with the corrupt judges. We can not bring evidence of corruption to corrupt judges. Los Angeles Superior Court judges are illegally and unconstitutionally taking 50,000.00 each for a total of 23 million per year.
danielcooper1000 1 year ago
@xrologuex
Yep one of my speakers is toast figured I would just switch to mono but for some reason with all the options I have switching from stereo to mono doesn't seem to be one of them :(
Tyjohnable 1 year ago
@LiberalViewer
I can't hear anything except your narration
Tyjohnable 1 year ago
Constitutional Rights? What do you know about the constitution? Have you ever read it? If you have then you clearly did not understand it or comprehend it. Did you sign the document? Your direct blood relatives sign it? Then it dosent apply to you, you have no right to claim your constitutional rights have been infringed on because you are not a party to the Constitution, PERIOD! Don't believe me? Read the Supreme courts decision on Paddleford Fay & Co vs Savannah (Ref 14 Georgia 438) WAKE UP!!
probuiltlakecity 1 year ago
one fascist viewer spews some nonsense about constitutional rights that he clearly doesnt care to know what they are or what is a right or what COnstitution really says. "Liberals" uniformed lying fascist reatrds they are dont know one dman thing about the constituion and are to faggotly illiterate mentally and spirtually to read it.
RIGHT TO BEAR AMRS RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY(Hear me Hitlery and leftist witchhunters), STATES RIGHTS Something leftist crooks and fiends are all about violating.
deltapunk21 1 year ago
Call me a biggot but I have seen to many examples of Black Politicians trampling on our rights with their hubris and malavolent antics....just google Sheila Jackson-Lee or Maxine Waters....I guess when you grow up with a government tit in your mouth you are forever tainted with Nanny State Ideology.
meanranger 1 year ago
More evidence that Black Elected Officials not only disregard our US Constitution but don't even try to learn it. Conyers for example: He claimed there was a "GOOD AND WELFARE Clause" that justifies OBAMACARE.
meanranger 1 year ago
umm have you read the 10th amendment to the constitution?
getnick77 1 year ago
GOD DAAAAAAAMN WTF IS HER PROBLEM!!!!! Is she trying to take away everyones rights that the founding fathers have set up in order to PROTECT us from the GOVERNMENT in times of tyranny including making the GOVERNMENT know what it's limits are which they have continiously ignored!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Government is here to make us FREE and to live our God givin rights of Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness why is it attacking us to make us like slaves of the government?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Sethern53 2 years ago
@Sethern53 The De Jure form of Government that was vacated in 1944 was replaced with the Corporate De Facto form of Government that is in place now. Read Title 28 USC 3002 Subsection 15-A and read the definition of "United States" If you still dont understand it read the Supreme Courts decision in the Paddleford Fay & Co vs Savannah- (Ref 14 Georgia 438) It clearly tells you individuals have NO RIGHT to complain by suit in court as to a violation of the Constitution, You are not a party to it!!
probuiltlakecity 1 year ago
The woman is BEYOND ignorant. It makes me very sad when I sit and think about the people running our city, they are so idiotic. Excuse my language, lets send her ASS to the unemployment line next election.
revjoenathan 2 years ago
im a conservative and an atheist and i must stay the ACLU like this issue of the free speech in library i get but trying to obtain classifed photos of terrorists in gitmo being interogated should remain secret in order to protect our troops overseas and us
strawberEfieldz4ever 2 years ago
although I immediately dislike the woman because she's part of Cali's state gov't, it sounded as if she said "screw people's constitutional RIGHT" notice that right is singular. If she had said rights in the plural, then it would be about rights in general, but if it's singular then it is specific so she may have said something like "Screw folks' constitutional right to marry their hampster."
frenchstudentA 2 years ago
Woah, that lady should shut up and get off that chair.
Xirbtt 2 years ago
Wow... just wow. That woman is insane.
Otokogoroshi 2 years ago
I'm afraid you haven't got it right. United States v. ALA 593 U.S. 194 (2003) established that it's not unconstitutional for Congress to compel a library that accepts federal funding to install filters meant to screen out UNprotected speech (obscenity). It follows that a state agency can do the same, since public libraries get most of their funding from them. So, while I'm against forcing libraries and librarians to filter the internet, it's not unconstitutional to enact such a regulation.
colonelmatterson 2 years ago
Out of curiousity, what did she say immediately afterwards? Obviously, those first four words are mind-boggling, but I want to be sure that's the full story.
Yesfan90125 2 years ago
SCREW her. She is an idiot, but she was excercising her constitutional right to run her big mouth.
HigherStandard1776 2 years ago
@ 1:09
Wow.
davetoob 2 years ago
that's a heavy blow she made with those four words...
Teirusu155 2 years ago
Your rights end at the tip of your nose and my rights begin at the tip of my nose. YOU do not have the right to view porn where my children can see it. THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTE RIGHTS!!! Yelling fire in a theatre is not protected free speech. Grow up and live like a civilized man!!!!
SGTRVN1 2 years ago
Actually you can yell fire in a theatre. It's just that you are responsible to the owner of the theatre for all the business she lost when you yelled fire.
The Bill of Rights has a preamble. The preamble of the Bill of Rights essentially says that the first 10 Amendments are declaratory clauses; they can't be repealed.
As Michael Badnarik said, "The Constitution doesn't give me the freedom of speech. I have the freedom of speech because you're not big enough to shut me up."
davetoob 2 years ago
Clearly, you do not understand Supreme Court decisions. It is against the law to yell fire in a theatre because it endangers lives. Geez!!!
You are using rational arguements against legal ones and that never, never, ever works..Also, your right to view something I consider offensive ends at the tip of your nose, when I can see it. Another Supreme Court decision. Its almost as if you have had no legal training at all and are winging ti. Thats why the ACLU laughed at you.
SGTRVN1 2 years ago
I suspect the post refers to Schenck v. United States (1919). Brandenburg v. Ohio overturned Schenck. Branenburg was a departure from earlier rulings such as Schenck and Whitney v. California.
I disagree with the notion that my rights end at my nose. Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "the right to swing my fists ends where the other man's nose begins." This is a quote, not a supreme Court decision.
Furthermore, have you got proof that yelling fire in a theatre is "against the law?"
davetoob 2 years ago
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Maybe you consider the words of the 4th Amendment offensive. By your logic, I would not have the right to view these words on a public library internet connection.
davetoob 2 years ago 2
In the Chicago Public Library, we laugh at people like you. People like you actually think they can tap internet porn viewers on the shoulder to get them to turn off their porn and expect the internet porn viewer to not be offended that someone like you had the nerve to disrupt their internet viewing.
davetoob 2 years ago
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic (Schenck v. United States).
Where do you see that it's "against the law" to yell fire in a crowded theatre?
davetoob 2 years ago
That's what you look like? Not bad. LOL
Savior20061 3 years ago
What would the material be, you aren't stating the type of material. Constitutionally protected material, for the most part, wouldn't be offensive. I don't really believe porn is defended by the constitution, I don't think any sort of hate speech is protected.
HornPlayer983 3 years ago
It's not the Constitution's job to protect our rights; it's our job to protect the Constitution.
As Michael Badnarik put it, "The Constitution doesn't give me the freedom of speech, I have the freedom of speech because you're not big enough to shut me up."
Punishing someone because you were offended by her speech does more harm than her speech could ever do. This is essentially Thomas Jefferson's argument for the 1st Amendment.
davetoob 2 years ago
Good video... First off, the const restrains Big gov from mandating these types of laws, but state and local government can create them, with judicial oversight to their constitutionality... It was not appropriate for her to make those remarks, but it is a judge's job to check and balance biased lawmaking, and also those who vote next election cycle...
soliloqy 3 years ago
What a bitch! She's the kind of person that would be a gun grabber if she isn't already.
sniper6081 3 years ago 2
yeah, fuck constitutional rights?
Then fuck her freedom of speech. Lock her up for saying that.
Don't allow her to go to church
Don't let her vote cause she's a woman - something protected in one of the new amendments.
Facist people like that piss me off so much
Bobalithmiss1 3 years ago 4
dido/amen! im from new Hampshire our moto is live "free or die"kinda like "give me liberty or give me death" im not closed minded at all i can understand a suicide bomber becuse hes fighting 4 those rights that he isnt given.. we already got them but are doing every thing we can to elect the nice-looking rockstar politicians who "screw" are good ol constitution right up as long as there rich and popular im ashamed of the fact that the land i love doesn't exist anymore.
sLim1of100 3 years ago
I don't think people should be looking at porn in the library, but I think the libraries themselves should make their own policies. The gov't shouldn't have a say in it.
greenhell49 3 years ago
I might be wrong, but libraries are run by the government, therefore "public library"
HornPlayer983 3 years ago 3
time to wake up people theres proof out there as in this video that they don't care and will continue to not care about any of you...me your neighbor or yourself. Its pretty simple to understand just excepting it...but we have to learn and understand and all agree cause once we realize there are more of us than them and fight back with 300 million plus voices then the governments decision to do whatever it wants is SCREWED!!!!
allister26 3 years ago
OMG, I cant stop screaming at the monitor here!
Smokin3215 3 years ago 2
The situation going on in Memphis, will definitely be of interest to you.
mpdenforcer20 . blogspot . com
PleaseFreeWillie 3 years ago
Like Bush Sr said, "the constitution is just a g*d damn* piece of paper
Sware an oath to uphold it and lie tells alot about a man. Might as well stop signing bills (if by ones own confession) its not anything substantial, just paper
lol Try telling the IRS filing a 1040 is just another *g*d damn piece of paper (which it really is)even though theres no law that mandates you file. Gestopo treatment for breaking a non existing law.
How can you break "nothing"?
nuts
KARStarla 3 years ago
Sadly, this is what the country is coming to :/.... its only one generation away...
People are becoming happy to enslave themselves....
bey0nd01 3 years ago
child molesters on porn sites and your kids are right across the table.. sounds ok to me... idiots...and the ACLU is fighting to get inmates sex changes.. and got them hormone therapy now with your money...
mike1111qq 3 years ago
mike1111qq,
Actually, if u mean the ACLU of Wisconsin case in Sundstrom v. Frank, the inmates were already getting hormones when the state passed a law targeting them and cutting off treatment even though medical experts agreed that blocking people from access to hormone treatment after they have been on the treatment is especially dangerous and could cause life-threatening damage. See
tinyurl(.)com/yucv3q
take parentheses out of that web address
I hope that helps and
thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 3 years ago
4 inmates in wisconsin
mike1111qq 3 years ago
mike1111qq,
Again, as I pointed out and you did not address, in Sundstrom v. Frank, the inmates were already getting hormones when the state passed a law targeting them and cutting off treatment even though medical experts agreed that blocking people from access to hormone treatment after they have been on the treatment is especially dangerous and could cause life-threatening damage. See
tinyurl(.)com/yucv3q
I hope that helps correct your misinformation and
thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 3 years ago
i didnt answer because i dont care about them...my advice to them is to stay out of jail...my oppinion is in jail you have the right to eat sleep and work on the chain gang thats it.. that way thay would not be so popular ...as in 1 in 10 americans is in jail because we are to nice .....
mike1111qq 3 years ago
mike1111qq,
Regardless of your "oppinion," the US Constitution determines the rights of prisoners and, despite losing some rights as punishment for their crimes, prisoners still retain other rights and, like every other person, they deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. Having visited many prisons, I can assure u the problem is not that "we are to nice." The way a society treats prisoners should reflect the values of the society not the values of the prisoners
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 3 years ago
Liberalviewer showed you lol
Loser i knew you'd cop out to "i dont care" as soon as he started strangling your concept. You do care. That why you bought it up.
SkoRoyal 3 years ago
It's pretty outrageous that the media didn't report on a riduclously antagonizing statement like that.
Also: you're a total hottie, LieralViewer.
starryhawk 4 years ago
I can't believe a gov't official would actually be able to to say "screw folk's rights" without hitting a bottle of strong liquor... this is absolutely outrageous...
wemmitt87 4 years ago
It is easy to burn books but it is hard (and just silly) to burn computers! Sorry if I'm not that funny but this was a joke....
Upsetley 4 years ago
People don't have a right to view pornography in a public library were young children are surely present! Do it in your own home!
jjones1987 4 years ago
jjones1987,
Actually, the policy at issue never mentions "porn" but gives the gov power to prohibit:
"subject matter that would interfere with the maintenance of a safe, welcoming and comfortable environment"
That's way too broad/vague and could cover a wealth of political, religious, medical, and other material, basically anything that could offend anybody. Its so clearly unconstitutional that no one from the library even tried to legally justify it
Thx 4 comment :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
Well with a broad statement such as that I can see your point!
jjones1987 4 years ago
great vid man. I agree.
h20Enthusiast 4 years ago
This person appears hell-bent on break oath of office, American spirit, and common sense.
33rdPatriot 4 years ago
That is why you should not vote for ignorant council members, they do that kind of shit all the time here in Austin. THey need to get sued and you should do it. I am sure the ACLU is good for something, so you the resources afforded to you and call them. If I lived there I sure the hell would!
KoreyAusTex 4 years ago
After september 11, 2001, I was viewing websites that did not agree with the official story. Someone had hacked into the website and replaced a picture of the WTC with an extremely offensive picture of three old men performing homosexual acts on each other. I was very embarrassed and immediately told the library staff. I'm all for decency in public, but SCREW the CONSTITUTION? I'd rather see porn on street corners like I saw in Spain.
GilliganVsPredator 4 years ago
First of all, we do not have any constitutional rights. The constitution is only a document concerning our servants and the bill of rights does not grant Men and Women their rights, the bill of rights is part of the contract our servants agreed to uphold with their oath of office. You've proof on video here that the woman broke her oath of office, so get her thrown out!
1smartaleck 4 years ago
i'm having trouble decifering your point here. we do not have constitutional rights? what is that about?
fedeman2 4 years ago
The Constitution does not have anything to do with you, how can a piece of paper give you something which is unalienable?
1smartaleck 4 years ago
are you kidding me? the constitution is based on philosophical principals. man was born free and given free will. that piece of paper makes sure that is respected.
fedeman2 4 years ago
That piece of paper binds the officers of the government which it creates to respect those rights, it does not grant any rights and does not even purport to.
1smartaleck 4 years ago
let me put it this way: forget the consitution, democracy and pretend we live in the stone age: it is not natural for someone to have parameteres as to what he wants to do (the obvious exceptions would be those that impose on what someone else wants to do). the constitution is there to make sure that those natural rights are respected. so i guess tecnically you're right it doesn't "grant" anything. it RECOGNIZES that.
fedeman2 4 years ago
ok, os how does that make me wrong?
fedeman2 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
--The United States is not a country but the corporation created to perfom 18 enumerated functions for the States.
--The United States has a jurisdiction of 10 miles square; within it's jurisdiction it may legislate "in all cases whatsoever" (absolute rule).
--Neither the United States or it's corporate bylaws, the Constitution, has anything directly to do with the citizenry or their rights.
neothomist1275 3 years ago
Screw Councilwoman Pannel!
CoolHandLuke1970 4 years ago
I wonder what Freud would have to say about her use of the word "screw" in this context.
offramp23 4 years ago
I hope her head rolls down the street.
JollyRoger446 4 years ago
Constitutional rights are "screwed" all of the time esspecially in smaller towns. I'm shocked they could get away with it there but where I live rights are constantly ignored and nobody says or does anything about it.
On the note of "block or stop looking over the shoulder" I think its clear that people should learn to avert their eyes from "offensive material" just like how i shall avert my eyes from some of the less thought out posts. I dont like them so thusly I wont look.
SwollenEyeAgent 4 years ago
So, not being allowed access to porn at a public library is a violation of one constitutional rights? So, by that logic, me getting in trouble at work for taking a pornographic magazine there is a violating of my constituational rights, and the fact that regular (noncable) channel don't show porn is also a violation.
DKaidian 4 years ago
DKaidian,
Actually, the policy at issue never mentions "porn" but gives the gov power to prohibit:
"subject matter that would interfere with the maintenance of a safe, welcoming and comfortable environment"
That's way too broad/vague and could cover a wealth of political, religious, medical, and other material, basically anything that could offend anybody. Its so clearly unconstitutional that no one from the library even tried to legally justify it
Thx 4 comment :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
Yeah well the question becomes how interesting is the Public Library Authority anyway?
Darkhawk1234 4 years ago
god this world is rediculous
SwollenEyeAgent 4 years ago
The pro-Constitution presidential candidates as I understand them are: Ron Paul(R); Chris Dodd(D); Dennis Kucinich(?) Corporations support multiple candidates, why shouldn't we? That will give the pro-Constitution arguments more of a chance to be heard.
givebirthathome 4 years ago
the problems with filters, is that if they block words from being viewed, for example, if they Filter the word "sex" and some person tries to find poetry by Anne Sexton, she would not be found.
dosx 4 years ago
I think bush can be quoted as saying something similar about the constitution. Basically, noone cares about constitutional rights anymore. the president swearing in to uphold is a big joke.
tdrehfal 4 years ago
argh we need to real news like this to be on large networks...
R3unbreakable 4 years ago
Good video!
imrational 4 years ago
The network news is a business, like it or not. Business's tend to do what is in their best interest.
uberwolf420 4 years ago
Part of the problem is that the corporate/economic leaders of america have alot of involevment in government. And all of the big time news networks, are owned by those corporte leaders of america. They can't report thing's if people higher up the ladder don't want them reported.
uberwolf420 4 years ago
I wonder how Councilwoman Pannel would react if she was discharged from her elected position without any recourse. Would she find this a violation of her constitutional rights or would she not care since, screw the folks anyway?
storksac 4 years ago
HOLY CRAP!! lol. I cant believe she said that!
ilikestuff712 4 years ago
#1: Yes. They should at least have it in local news.
#2: The gov't should have no authority in banning. The only people who should be able to decide that are the librarians and the people who run the library.
Japanseb 4 years ago
#1: Yes. They should at least have it in local news.
#2: The gov't should have no authority in banning. The only people who should be able to decide that are the librarians and the people who run the library.
Japanseb 4 years ago
Love your videos...
renetto 4 years ago
renetto,
Thanks so much! Getting praise for my videos from such a YouTube video master is high praise indeed!
Also thanks for publicly posting your praise :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
LIberalViewer, man, you're quite well known as well. For some - "famous," for others - "infamous."
I'm of the former opinion,
-Qes
QuasiEvilScott 4 years ago
What are these "Constitutional protected" webpages that people are trying to view? Porn?
Manos723 4 years ago
Manos723,
Actually, the policy gives the gov power to prohibit
"subject matter that would interfere with the maintenance of a safe, welcoming and comfortable environment"
That's way too broad/vague and could cover a wealth of political, religious, medical, and other material, basically anything that could offend anybody. Ive been delayed, but I'm still hoping to have another vid on this topic soon
Thx 4 comment :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
I was reading the .pdf and page 26, 7.1; Attachment A from the Jan 24, 2002 meeting outlines that what they are wanting to filter is porn. Do you have an issue with them filtering porn sites?
Manos723 4 years ago
Manos723,
The filter controversy from 2002 was mainly resolved by a recent US Supreme Court case that basically said u can have filters if u immediately remove them for adults. That was 2002. You can see the policy I was talking about in BOLD type on page 55 of the PDF. As u can see it is a broad, unconstitutional grant of authority to gov officials to ban almost anything offensive.
Thx 4 comments :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
Do you believe the public library is a suitable place for an adult to view pornography?
Manos723 4 years ago
"The filter controversy from 2002 was mainly resolved by a recent US Supreme Court case that basically said u can have filters if u immediately remove them for adults"
That's not what the decision said at all.
colonelmatterson 2 years ago
"Although we are disappointed that the Court upheld a law that is unequivocally a form of censorship, there is a silver lining. The Justices essentially rewrote the law to minimize its effect on adult library patrons," said Chris Hansen, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU...
-ACLU website
davetoob 2 years ago
Um, I actually read the opinion and the statute, and there is no modification in it whatsoever. Justice Breyer's concurrence makes it clear: the Court applied a balancing test between the statute's attempt to serve a compelling interest and *some* issues involving heightened scrutiny, but the law as it stands is perfectly constitutional. The law already provided for the filters being removed on request "for bona fide research purposes." It sounds like whomever you're quoting is in lalaland.
colonelmatterson 2 years ago
I don't think it should be so broad, but I definintly agree on a rather narrow issue: pornography should not be allowed to be viewed in the public library while on the internet. However, I don't think I'd go any further than that.
bernlin2000 4 years ago
Liberalviewer, I think this is the first time I've really disagreed with you. I fully believe that the current Administration is trying to roll back all our freedoms, including freedom of speech, and we have to stop them. But to promote allowing someone to watch porn in a public facility, especially with little kids roaming around, is silly and is only going to further deepen the wedge between "liberals" and "conservatives."
FlamingHound 4 years ago
FlamingHound,
I never mentioned porn in my vid because porn is not mentioned in the policy. The policy gives the gov power to prohibt "subject matter that would interfere with the maintenance of a safe, welcoming and comfortable environment"
That's way too broad and vague and there are better ways 2 protect kids. I'll have a vid on this in next couple days
thx 4 comment :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
I agree that that is too broad. I thought I remembered something about this case being about a guy watching porn in the library. I think that should be off-limits, but I agree that that wording is too broad. Thanks for replying.
FlamingHound 4 years ago
this woman should be fired .
illbeats 4 years ago
Well, if there are controls on whom can sell or rent pornographic material in your municipality, then your municipality can claim that the library is not licensed to provide this material to you and that providing this material is not within the library's mandate. A person's sexual gratification is not the city's responsibility and this material is of questionable educational value.
canucktunes 4 years ago
As soon as I heard her say that, my jaw dropped. That is completely insane.
disharmoniamundi23 4 years ago
One of the attributes of an open mind is seeing all sides of an issue. It's hard to see clearly while standing on the pedestal of rigteousness.
We don't know what she said and in what context, since her comments were edited. Would have been better if you had not denied us our Constitutional access to them.
That point should be clear.
octopibingo 4 years ago
Well, not much is left of the bill of rights, so this is just another turn of the screw.
kencomer 4 years ago
I'd be outraged if they did anything that threatens net neutrality, but I'm not so sure this should be protected. I remember seeing someone at a public library years ago using the internet to view porn. After FIFTEEN minutes they finally told him to turn it off and leave. Now, how far do these measures go to prevent people from using material? Wouldn't it just be for cases like this? I didn't see one person upset they moved the public perv, nor would I ever ask them to stop from doing so.
Truthiness231 4 years ago
Don't most people that look at porn in libraries masturbate while they are doing it? Is public masurbation a constitutionally protested form of expression?
xMannyfestox 4 years ago
people need to stop looking over shoulders
misternef 4 years ago
The constitution is the ONLY thing that has prevented total tyranny in the United States, and protecting it is critical to our freedom.
EchelonMonitor 4 years ago
Everyone should be concerned about the movement to convince people that the constitution is not important.
Police are being taught that people who talk about the constitution may be terrorists.
Some judges don't allow the constitution to be mentioned in their courtrooms.
Schoolkids are taught that the constitution is outdated and should be more flexible to reflect the times.
EchelonMonitor 4 years ago
Wow. Excellent video. You're becoming a champion of ideals, LV.
p00lman 4 years ago
Screw the constitution??! lol impending death of the Empire
cpnjack 4 years ago
Kinda' like Bush and his "The constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper." THE GOP IS OUT OF CONTROL. Soon, all we'll have is the 2nd amendment!
DaCoach68 4 years ago
Luckily its the only one required for reestablishing the others
cowmandude 4 years ago
One more thing about the idiots who voted to restrict access. I live in a thoroughly GOP town and our library wouldn't even consider doing that. Why? because it IS a clear infringement on the rights of the users of a public institution. Most PC video screens here are enclosed in mini-cubicles which is an easy fix anywhere... if you see what's on the screen it's because you're TRYING to see what's on screen. Whose fault is that?
tralbry 4 years ago
Could you post contact info for the Sac P L Authority, and Bonnie "Pennel"? Anyone syaing that is a disgrace. That an African American woman would do so is just pathetic.. imagine if Strom Thurmond just said about the Voting Rights Act "screw their right to vote". Oh wait, he DID say that. What an idiot this woman is.
tralbry 4 years ago
you should use this so that this woman can't get re-elected!
hollyhoodjoe123 4 years ago
Protecting childern is all good, but at what cost? First off the government is not responsible for protecting your childern. That's your job, do it! If I wanna look at inappropriate material, that's my GOD given right! A Library is a temple of knowledge. Should we censor knowledge? Just because we find it inappropriate?
benbur69 4 years ago
"Liberals" are idiots.
J1Goro 4 years ago
oooooooooooooookay...
cinnamoncluster 4 years ago
You're right. Fascists and censors have the right idea.
p00lman 4 years ago
If you think Fascists and censors are the opposite of "liberals" in our congress you must not be watching.
J1Goro 4 years ago
Liberals don't go around telling other people what they are and aren't allowed to see and read and think.
p00lman 4 years ago
I'm sorry you think like Pelosi
J1Goro 4 years ago
"Screw the folks constitutional rights." I'm speechless.
Moviebro 4 years ago
So who are the pervs that want to view porn at the library? Do you want to masterbate in the library too? Why else would you look at porn?
TheReid 4 years ago
exacttly!.. and i am a liberal, but not for pedophilic rights!!
cinderella4pcharming 4 years ago
What has any of this have to do with pedophilia? And even, if it did, it's the right of ANYONE to use the resources of a public library. That's whatthe word PUBLIC means.
tralbry 4 years ago
what a bitch.
guyvf 4 years ago
Well...library is a public place, on one side. On the other, we all have a right to watch what ever it is we want, as long as it is legal.
What shocked me the most is the fact that an elected politician would even say something that "screw the constitutional rights of the people" and there isnt a national scandal.
airelav1981 4 years ago
dang lv you is a real live human being!
thanks for throwing yourself on that grenade, buddy
i'll dig my trench a little deeper
pennilesscripple 4 years ago
I think the solution to this would be to put the public computers in a some kind of booth with a door or curtain. People can't look over your shoulder if there's something obstructing their view.
MagicBaboon 4 years ago
the keys would get really sticky
tatethedog 4 years ago
So that's what you look like!
Anyway, how did you get this footage if it didn't get covered on the local stations? Surly it must have gotten SOME coverage...
As for the restrictions thing: I think some things really shouldn't be done in the public. Like I think someone mentioned porn... that would be unsuitable for the public... But drawing lines is difficult. Pornography itself is defined by the "I'll know it when I see it" thing... I'm just wondering HOW offencive things have to be.
MSJelin 4 years ago
well she is only following king Georges lead.
bizkin 4 years ago
No one has privacy... I guess... I can't believe Bonnie Panell
5and10 4 years ago
Holy crap! Amazing that a local public official could say that and not be fired...
ExposeTheDream 4 years ago
Cheney didn't get fired, why should she?
pennilesscripple 4 years ago
thats u lv, damn u sound different. do you mod your voice?
yigit2681 4 years ago
Sorry to comment again, but what did they mean by "stop people from viewing"? Did they mean physically stop them, or to block certain sites? Because if it is the former, they really don't have the personnel to do that.
dejahthoris 4 years ago
it refers to a software block. Cybernanny for example with catch the offensive address and prevent the web page from loading up.
Califman831 4 years ago
You are really intelligent and eloquent and clear-thinking. We need you in leadership in this country. I am so glad you posted this- it is appalling! It is not up to the government, whether on a local or national level, to decide what we absorb, it is our individual responsibility!
dejahthoris 4 years ago
power to the people!
clockworkhorrorshow 4 years ago
1. Absolutely
2. Absolutely not
paul121784 4 years ago
didn't you get the memo? no one actually ever answers lv's questions. ;^)
pennilesscripple 4 years ago
Sometimes the camera catches people say what they REALLY think. It can be shocking! The bigger issue is how long before we totally reform the representative government process so EVERYONE can vote on issues via the Internet? Use public library Internet access as a polling place for those who do not have a device. We should have a referendum on the war and every other critical issue and let the people vote via the Internet!!!
goneviral69 4 years ago
The constition is over-rated, what is really important is elected local officals who think only about themself.
Goadhatesmyspace 4 years ago
I thought you were a women =(
MozartPwns 4 years ago
heyy! you're on t.v.!!! xD
Lauuraxx 4 years ago
Please, please, please tell me that the clip of that council lady's retort will be looped non-stop on the media when local elections come up.
Kill. Crush. Destroy. Rip. Tear. Gouge. Voilate. Mutilate. Hurt. Hurt. Hurt. (chant copyright © 1975, 2007 Martin L. Schrader)
MartySchrader 4 years ago
A politician's condemnation of free speech should be given air time on the news.
Porn may be disgusting to the majority. But it's protected speech, and it should be.
Tolerance of speech in public institutions is essential to a pluralistic society, as our founding fathers foresaw. Without it, there can be only tyranny.
I think this is the first time you've appeared in a vid, LV. :-)
Urgelt 4 years ago
I don't think the majority considers it disgusting, but more so "inappropriate".
MagicBaboon 4 years ago
The fact that the local media didn't report more thoroughly on this matter is disturbing. Perhaps you should send your vid to the local TV news and/or put a letter into the editor of your local newspapers. Apology or not, any public official who says "screw your constitutional rights," needs to be exposed to the larger public's scrutiny.
dafttool 4 years ago
1. Is it wrong of me to assume that, since LV didn't mention a party affiliation, council woman Bonnie is a Democrat?
2. I'm not so sure having the government take money from me at the threat of gunpoint to buy books for other people to read is constitutional. Let's get over that hurdle first.
gt95stang 4 years ago
I agree that if the content/material being viewed on a public library computer is constitutionally protected then our public libraries should not impose their restrictions that violate this protection.
LiberalAchi 4 years ago
i'm so proud of you LV! great stuff! let's get her for her stupidity! what should we do? a letter writing campaign?
skinnychef 4 years ago
If national political representives can do what they want, who is going to stop a local person. Do and say what you want with no accountability.
pixiehorse 4 years ago
Tough call on the policy/law. One's rights should not be limited, but a public library isn't the place to be surfing porn. I'd never vote for a law restricting constitutional rights of adults.
The easy call is this woman should be removed from office, either by the next election, or by some recall or process in place in Sacramento. This video of her statement needs to be viewed by as many of her constituents as possible so that they can make an informed decision as soon as possible.
marlinboard 4 years ago
I am curious though, was the only major objection porn? Were there other non-porn sites deemed objectionable?
saintmuse 4 years ago
That's an excellent question.
From the sound of it, porn was all they were talking about - but what is porn? It's devilishly hard to define.
GWB and his administration consider dissent to be treason. They've said it often enough. Give 'em any powers over free speech and they'll grab for more.
Urgelt 4 years ago
I don't think viewing porn in a public library is a good thing. It's more appropriate to view it at a college computer lab.
JackAwful 4 years ago
Damn if the canadian charter of rights and freedoms were so easily disposed of, I'd be looking to move, but not before I showed my distaste for it all.
joekarim87 4 years ago
Unfortunately, most locally elected officials have never attended a civics class and are expected, by their constituents, to make decisions based on their own personal views (assuming these are in line with the community). You seldom find people well versed in the law at the local levels, and that being the case, a hearing such as this should have been presided over by a committee of constitutional experts.
saintmuse 4 years ago
screw governments that screw constitutional rights
genghis6199 4 years ago
It's hardly surprising that a black, nearly inarticulate locally elected from a PC wary metropolitan area doesn't get criticized for a statement she made on local access cable. After all, the US attorney general explains to congress that the constitution has no guarantee of habeas corpus and there's hardly a peep about that. Did it help him that he's Hispanic but plays the role of a stupid white guy?
annarboriter 4 years ago
As far as the media is concerned, even most local stations are owned by large corporations, who dictate the stance of the stations. And said corporations believe in cooperation with goverment, not offending them. Reporters have grown too lazy to research stories on their own, they depend on press releases from goverment officials.
besnugg 4 years ago
I think the policy the library wants to adopt is reasonable, as long as it is only referring to pornography. I can understand the concern that their provision of security screens may change what people are viewing in the library. The only other alternative is they provide everyone who wants to use the computer with a completely enclosed cubical (or not have the screens).
asumazilla 4 years ago
porn, but not say, grotesque violence or abuse? if we're gonna start drawing lines..
temujoe 4 years ago
That's were I would draw the line yeah. I don't believe there is any justification for looking at porn on the internet and expecting everyone else to pay.
asumazilla 4 years ago
We pay so that people can read novels about retarded love stories, monsters, how Jesus can save you, and all kinds of ridiculous things that don't appeal to everyonee, so why are vidoes of sex where to draw the line? That's what I don't understand. On the internet you get access to actual grotesque things; sex is not grotesque. Unless you're christian and not married... just kidding.
temujoe 4 years ago 2
I draw the line there because the purpose of porn is only to stimulate sexual arousal. The library isn't the place to be sexually aroused. The purpose of looking at actual grotesque things(tm) is hopefully to do something to stop them?
asumazilla 4 years ago
Your naivete is so grotesque that it should be banned for viewing at the public libray.
seaqueue 4 years ago