[Kalifornia Citizen]

May I say,

Those dishonorable federal judges made it 100% legal for my kids to study porn on the internet?

My FBI, oh my my! Don't go to any trouble, the bad guys are not worth the fight with the ACLU!

My safety czar! The crapulents Mcgaw and Mineta. Don't forget Ridge.

And I'll never forget Ruby Ridge!

Waco is for wackos, so the suits say. Bury your feelings, it's over.

Wait! They were not wackos! Is that OK to say?



If I don't post again in the next couple of days, please post bail for me at either the local county jail, or the state lockup!

KC

 

[Guest]

What court case are you referring to with the porn? And perhaps its your responsibility, as a parent, to monitor your children's internet access as opposed to the Federal government's?

I'd like so see some specifics on your complaints with the FBI vs ACLU as well. Do you mean the indifinite imprisonment of people who haven't been charged with a crime? That's a fight the ACLU on to take, since it is unconstitutional.

Might surprise you, and it might not, but I'm a member of the ACLU (might not make me popular on these boards, but such is life.) They try to take lawsuits that allow people to keep their civil liberties and not have other's ideas forced on them by local governments. I think people ought to have the chance to do whatever they want, as long as they aren't hurting anyone else. That includes having whatever religion they want, smoking pot if they want, or owning a pistol. All the same in my eyes.

 

[assaultu2]

It is true, parents should monitor their children instead of expecting someone else to do it. But if I'm reading this right, this is in "public" libraries. If one "actually" has kids most would agree that access to porn is hardly proper research material for a 7 year old. Since this is a "public" library, I dont think it would be a good idea to allow kids to have access to porn wether it be on the computer or otherwise. How many public libraries do you know of that have Hustler on the shelves???? Again parent responsibility is good, but many of these kids are on field trips from school. You gonna' take off of work every time your kid goes on a field trip?
The only problem is, it looks like with current technology this is not yet feasible. If the technology could only filter out porn to kids, then I suspect no one (who isnt a weirdo) would object.
AU2:usa:

 

[Guest]

First, a much better solution, and then why I agree with the ACLU and the ALA on this one.

My solution is cheaper, doesn't require special programming, equipment, or a systems administrator. How about having the computer that is used for internet access be in public view? That connection is funded with public money, so shouldn't the public be able to see what the connection is being used for? Shouldn't have much of a problem with folks looking up porn on the public dole, then.

Now for the longer part. I remember this one from the e-mail newsletter I get. The American Libraries Association filed with the ACLU because they didn't want to be forced to install the software. Forced being the key word, but leave it to the individual library to decide on its own.

I work with computers for a living. I'm Microsoft certified to administer networks, and I have a degree in Computer Info Systems. I have to keep up with networking technology to stay qualified to work in my field, and that includes filtering technology.

Basically there are two main ways to filter content, and neither work particularly well. One is keyword, which scans the page for words that are on the "naughty" list. It's tough to make a computer program that thinks though, and it can't distinguish between some one's pet cat and porno pictures, if you get my drift. It also has trouble with fashion pages, and most older ones will block MSN's entertainment page.

The second is blocking particular web sites, usually via IP address. The problem with this is it only blocks known web sites, and new ones pop up all the time. It doesn't require any special programs (although they are available to automate the process with several known sites) to block a certain IP, and can be done at the gateway router or at the proxy server that all internet connections in the building go through. That's handy with porn sites that mimic actually educational sites. There is a world of difference in www.whitehouse.gov and www.whitehouse.com.

Most "out-of-the-box" filtering software has an extremely high error rate, sometimes up to 80%. Server logs have to be reviewed by a systems admin and the program has to be tweaked to be effective, and then it is still pretty limited, although you can unblock sites that turn out to not be porn.
The problem is time. The logs get big, and administrators make pretty good money. Most companies don't want to pay their admin to do this, and most public agencies would be better off spending the money elsewhere.

 

[assaultu2]

Yeah, Doc
Maybe putting them in view of the employees and public would be enough. I'm no computer expert, but I figured "filtering" software that actually can perform this task is a long way away as you have shown. I suspect it would be almost impossible to acheive this task with any measure of "certainty"
Maybe someday software will become sophisticated enough, maybe "plain view" would be the best answer for now. I dont think a kids head would explode if he/she stumbled upon some porn (remember being a horny teen?) but it's still something I think needs as much attention as possible. I think if "the public" demands public libraries do something about a problem, as long as the public is willing to pay for it and it is "actually" possible and actually does what it's supposed to, then "forcing" wouldnt even be an issue since it's the publics' decision, not some library employee/director. But if their argument is that it's an impossible task then I'd not expect or force them to do anything and again force wouldnt be necessary. Personally I pay enough tax already, I'm in no hurry to add to my burden. It really doesnt matter anyway, as you have said right now it's not even possible. So I guess it's a mute point.
My oldest kids were in school before internet access hit here. My youngest (13) has it at school. He tells me their access is watched to a degree by the teacher.
Cheers, AU2:usa:

 

[Kalifornia Citizen]

DocWagon,
I have to believe your intentions are good. OK, you're a member of the ACLU. I guess that means you send them money, you buy their mission statement, and you think you're serving justice.

You've been hoodwinked, friend. The ACLU does not stand for justice, America, or anything good as far as I can tell. They fight for anarchy. That's not good for America, for children, or for freedom.

First of all, their name. American Civil Liberties Union. Beautiful name, each word is admirable. Put them all together, and you'd think that they would represent Christian's rights, Parent's rights, American traditions, Victim's rights, etc. As well as Pornographer's rights, Terrorist's rights, Criminal's rights, Illegal immigrant's rights, etc.

You referred to holding people without charging them of a crime. That applies to citizens of the US. None of our rights should automatically be assumed to apply to non-citizens. The FBI is holding over a thousand suspects for investigation. They are not citizens. I agree that the FBI has to either charge them or deposit them within the borders of their own country. Release them in the USA? No way!

Citizens vote and it is a crime for non-citizens to vote in our elections. I'd really like to see voter fraud laws enforced!

Pornography in the public library? Get real! Who cares if you look at nude or sex photos/videos at home?

Obviously, you never had any kids, or you wouldn't start your argument with "it's the parent's responsibility". I'm telling you, parents don't let their kids look at porn on the internet. Kids will find a way, and parents will try to prevent it. The kids will do it anyway, and parents will agonize because they can't do everything for their little one. And that's where the point is made. The contest between parents and children is how values are passed down from one generation to the next. The values have to pass muster or they will not take. Parents are not pleased that our government permits the flesh trade do their business in public libraries!

Do you still support the ACLU? They don't support you! They are a brotherhood/sisterhood/whatever of lawyers, committed solely to bringing down the country, that's my opinion.

Please don't send them any money.

KC

 

[Guest]

As far as porn in the public library, I think I've addressed that. The libraries don't want to be forced to use software that doesn't work. The ACLU supported that, as do I.

I don't have children at this time, as a personal choice due to the amount of time I would have to spend with the child. However, that doesn't mean I don't remember what it was like to be a child, or I don't see my friend's constant struggle with their children. Most of my friends' kids are between 5-13, and the most effective way I see to control their internet access is to be in the room with them, or to take 10 minutes and learn to go through the internet logs that Windows automatically creates and let the child know you have the capability.

The other tact to take is to push legislators to enforce the "must be 18" laws for adult web sites, not to push ineffective software on public libraries (who have limited funds to begin with, and this software isn't exactly cheap).

I send the ACLU a bit of money each year, because they do protect your rights, but they don't protect your rights to force your beliefs on others. I don't agree with everything they do, but what organization do you agree with 100%?

Maybe you should look into some of the things the ACLU actually fights instead of just looking at the things that make the local paper, which are typically the most controversial ones.

http://www.aclu.org/action/genetics107.html You're not for having to submit a DNA sample to get a job or insurance, are you?

http://www.aclu.org/news/2002/n052902b.html What about the right to protest and assemble? I despise PETA, but that doesn't mean I don't support their right to assemble peacefully.

I'm not going to go on and on, you can make up your own mind like the rest of us. I support the ACLU because everyone has certain rights, like assembly or not having another's religion forced on them, regardless of if they happen to think like me or agree with me.

Dissent isn't anti-American, but what America is all about. It's how democracy works.

 

[Tankcommander]

I don,t care much for the ACLU they seem to pick their fights, Doc are they doing anything to help support the 2nd Amendment.

As for for the computer filters, they could also be set to filter out info on firearms, It could filter out this BBS "Union"? They will cause more trouble then they will stop.

Have the work stations out in the open that should do the trick. Its that way at my local branch. The technology isn't there yet and I am also sick and tired of the cry to restrict the rights of adults for the childrens sake. Remember all the crap about smart guns and trigger locks to protect the children.

For Christs Sake they tried to take Playboy out of the PX because some rugrat might see it. Also remember they are trying to restrict guns to protect the children. Are you ready to fight for only some freedoms.

No you have to fight for all of it. It is the parents job to raise your own kids. A take an intrest in what they do. Be a Parent!

TC
:cannon: :trooper:

 

[assaultu2]

(are they doing anything to help support the 2nd Amendment. )
Not that I've ever seen. In fact their stance on the 2nd is unfriendly at best. They seem to have bought into the "collective rights" theory.
I would have no problem supporting them if they werent such an enigma to me.
Yes they do indeed do some good stuff. The 2 reports submitted by Doc are a good example of what I'm talking about. The 1st one is great, the 2nd what?? I didnt see any great infringement of someones rights. All I saw was a couple of freaks who were arrested on "obstructing public access" and "indecency"
Maybe they were innocent, maybe not, I didnt see any clear evidence that would get me worried.
A better example is the time I saw some little hippy wanna be UCLU guy complaining about entrapment.
The story goes like this; The Las Vegas police were having major troubles with muggings on side streets downtown. So they put a plainclothes officer out on the street to pose as a lost tourist (lost tourists were the target of muggers remember). Well pretty soon a mugger tried to take the officers money by force. Wham, the mugger was arrested by officers waiting around the corner. Several muggers were arrested this way. Problem solved? NOOOO- The ACLU sissy called it entrapment and made a stink.
To me, and probably most everyone else, entrapment is like giving a junkie free drugs then slapping the cuffs on him as soon as he takes them. Or, leaving money on the sidewalk and arresting the first person to pick it up. NOT some dirtbag going out of his way to attack and rob someone, then claiming he was "tricked into it????"
Okay, the ACLU is right that even a small infringement is still unacceptable, but they seem so un-homogenious I never know which way they will go. I have to believe for every nit-picky "violation" they champion, there are a hundred "actual" violations that need attention.
They remind me of jesse jackson. He will defend every thug he can while there are plenty of good people whos civil rights need defended and could actually use his coalitions' help. I KNOW, he came here to Decatur Ill. to defend 6 little gang bangers who beat on people at a football game. Claiming it was some sort of racist plot and trying to divide people here. He finally left (tail between legs) when he realized he had no support from anyone here of any color. BTW; he also was arrested for breaking a restraining order here-charges later dropped when he left because we didnt want him to come back. As a side note 2 of these poor repressed 6 kids were later jailed. One for beating his pregnant girlfriend and the other for I dont know what. The other 4??? who knows, probably selling crack somewhere.
At any rate, I wont support either one.
As far as compairing stupid "smart gun" legislation to finding ways to filter out "in your face" beaver spreads to 7 year olds, NOT even close. I dont think it's taking away adults rights by not letting public library computers access farmanimal porn or fisting. Think I wanna' take my kid to the library and have some weirdo "in plain sight" looking up man-boy-love sites? This is a public library, my guns are not public property-2 different arguments. But again it's not even feasible anyway, so it's a mute point.
I'm not picking on anyone, Doc if you wanna support the ACLU, I dont think that makes you a bad guy at all. After all they do some good stuff. and Tankcommander has a point, this "do it for the children" thing makes me puke too. Using sympathy or pseudo concern for kids to do your dirty work is truly pathetic.
Just wanted to clairify some stuff.
Cheers, AU2

 

[Guest]

I'm not trying to convert anyone, plain and simple. I only ask that your opinion on them, as on everything else, is based on all the facts available, and not, and not just the slanted media's take on it.

As for their stance on 2nd amendment, they have declared themselves neutral, meaning they stand with the Supreme Courts last decision of US v Miller.

The "in brief" quote from the web site is:
**********
IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

ACLU POLICY
*********

So basically, this is one issue I disagree with them on. Same with the death penalty, which I favor. It's the same with any organization from a club to a political party. You're probably not going to agree 100%, but you try to support those that are closest to your ideas.

 

[Kalifornia Citizen]

Thanks Docwagon for exposing yourself as the gun grabber that you are. And thanks for attaching that stigma to the ACLU.

You exposed their intentions plainer than the horn on an approaching locomotive.

The ACLU wants to license our guns. Not news to me, I hope everybody gets it now.

A couple of posts agreed that they pick their fights. Every fight they pick has an angle to bring down America.

In my opinion, the ACLU is as dangerous as the terrorists! And they deserve to be exposed for what they are!

I suggest that all gun owners who sent money to the ACLU in the past, instead send money to the Gun Owners of America. The GOA does not compromise our civil rights.

KC

 

[Guest]

Just when I thought we had it settled.

Sure, I'm a "gun grabber" or whatever you want to call me. I guess that makes me pretty hypocritical since I own firearms, and routinely carry a pistol with a CCW permit.

Did you bother to read the post?

One, the ACLU is NEUTRAL on gun ownership. They don't PURSUE ANY AGENDA IN RELATION TO FIREARMS. They don't want to license your guns or not license your guns. They don't care either way.

Two, I plainly stated this is one of the things I don't agree with them on.

 

[Kalifornia Citizen]

The ACLU is clearly not neutral. Just as you posted, they think it's just fine for guns to be licensed. This is not neutral. We Kalifornians have been listening to doubletalk like yours for a long time and look where Kalifornia is - a very short distance from confiscation.

And don't claim to be pro-freedom just because you have a CCW. Don Perata, the KA Senate leader in gun control, Dianne Feistein, the US Senate leader in gun control, both have CCWs. Both are elitists who have done everything within their government powers to take guns away from the average citizen, yet they think it's fine for SWAT teams to have the best military equiprment available.

Your skill at doubletalk is perfect. If only conservatives would learn and use it.

KC

 

[Guest]

Think as you will.

Its obvious you're not reading what I typed, so what point is there to respond further?

 

[Kalifornia Citizen]

Docwagon,
I read each and every preposition, verb, noun, adverb. ACLU to me means war. I'm not sorry for attacking, but I apologize if I got you wrong. You tell it. Where did I get you wrong?

Speech is a weapon, and always has been. In Kalifornia, I feel the culture war is nearly lost. Traditional American Values are nearly OUTLAWED!

The ACLU has twisted the Freedom Of Religion argument into No TRACE of Christianity! Damn the ACLU!

The ACLU has twisted SEXUAL PERVERSITY into a civil right! Damn the ACLU!

The mission of the ACLU is to bring down America. Screw up the country with it's own rules. Take down America anyway you can! It's the ninteen-sixties hippy slogan, "Bring it down, man"

The ACLU has perverted our Criminal Justice System! The ACLU represents murder FELONS. But, when did the ACLU represent the wife of a fallen police officer? Never!

As far as I can tell, The ACLU stands for sending policemen to prison! Damn the ACLU!

You are on the wrong side with the ACLU. American Civil Liberties Union? Their motives are anti-American, there is only chaos in their mission, they plan to snuff out the liberties that Americans enjoy, but they are Unified. There is one word of truth in their name. That's my opinion.

KC

 

[Tankcommander]

Wasn't it Shakespeare who wrote and I know this is not exact, The first thing we do when we take over is KILL ALL THE LAWYERS. Funny how he would know what trouble they would cause 500 years ago. Truer words were never said.

NOW THIS IS SAID SEMI TONGUE IN CHEEK BEFORE ANYONE GETS TO UPSET.

TC:cannon:

 

[djskit]

Here are two recent examples of what the ACLU has spent thier valuable time and resources on:

Suing the airlines because some guys that looked like terrorist got hassled at an airport

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/0...filing-usat.htm

And suing the goverment on behalf of Shoe Bomber Terrorist Ried so he can get Time Magazine in his cell

http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?...StoryID=1044384

Makes me wanna puke!

As President Bush said, you are either with us, or with the Terrorist!
:usa:
What side do you think the ACLU is on Doc?

 

[djskit]

When they are not defending terrorists, they're busy atacking the Boy Scouts

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/sddt/20020528...y_scouts_1.html

 

[djskit]

They also don't think that marriage shouldn't be just between a man and woman

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=140520...02-021512-6324r

 

[djskit]

Opps, looks like they are not fans of the 10 Commandments either

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=281120...01-122106-7084r

Any one see a pattern here?