Can a Public Library Screw Your Constitutional Rights?

Politicians often VOTE to screw folks' constitutional rights, but you don't often see them SAY they are doing it while they do it. In the statement caught here for which she later apologized, Sacramento City Councilwoman Bonnie Pannell revealed just such an attitude behind her vote to censor adults viewing constitutionally protected material using internet access in public libraries.

For more information about the unconstitutional internet access policy adopted by the Sacramento Public Library Authority, see agenda item 7.1 and accompanying materials at: http://www.saclibrary.org/about_lib/auth_board/070322/agenda_03_22_07.pdf

The Sacramento Bee coverage of the March 22, 2007 hearing of the Sacramento Public Library Authority was available at the time of this upload at: http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/142825.html

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Free
• speech
• internet
• first
• amendment
• Sacramento
• Library
• Authority
• vote
• bonnie
• pannell
• bogus
• pornography
• issue
• allen
• asch
• commentary
• analysis
• news
• liberal
• viewer

[mike1111qq]

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...

[LiberalViewer]

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 :-)

[mike1111qq]

4 inmates in wisconsin

[LiberalViewer]

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 :-)

[mike1111qq]

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 .....

[LiberalViewer]

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 :-)

[Bobalithmiss1]

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

[HornPlayer983]

I might be wrong, but libraries are run by the government, therefore "public library"

[virindi1]

AAAAAAAAAHAAHAH

[BigFatHeretic]

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!

[BigMobe]

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.

[jpsartrean]

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.

[danielcooper1000]

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.

[Tyjohnable]

@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]

@LiberalViewer

I can't hear anything except your narration

[probuiltlakecity]

@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]

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!!

[deltapunk21]

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.