Pardon my tardiness with this reply. A copy has also been posted to the original thread. Dave posted his comment on 13 May, and I couldn't get around to answering it before today.
First, let me point out that censorship starts at the publisher's door -- not the distributor.
That is an egregious misinterpretation, at best, or an outright misrepresentation, at worst. It shows that you know little, if anything, about issues of censorship and free speech.
Secondly, we are talking about taxpayer funded speech -- and taxpayers have every right to define the speech they want to pay for, or stop for that matter.
Anti-censorship advocates pay their taxes too, and don't see why their tax dollars should be funnelled into a religious totalitarianist movement by the U.S. government in violation of the First Amendment proscription against a theopolitical establishment.
Secondly, your statement is repudiated by that portion of the First Amendment that says the government is forbidden to abridge freedom of speech. Public funds, as held in trust and disbursed by any level of government, cannot be legally used to stop speech. The U.S. Supreme Court has been defining the word "congress", as used in the First Amendment, since at least 1933 or 1928, increasingly to mean any person, whether elected, appointed, or employed, at any level of government. That means
everybody from the dogcatcher to the President, and includes librarians.
Perverts can find their smut elsewhere.
Oh yeah? What places are the censormorons are going to leave them to find their smut? You are focusing solely on censorship in the library. Censorship movements are ubiquitous. The ultra-right wing nut reactionaries don't want anything, anywhere, that offends their hypersensitivities and petty prejudices. You know? . . . the people who demanded internet filtering in the first place and wouldn't allow anybody to look at the lists of what sites were being blocked or to know by what criteria they
were blocked under? Sites having to do with science? Political officials? Etc, ad nauseum?
Censorship is like a blood-lust. Neither one can ever be slaked.
While liberals could care less about protecting the lives and safety of children, . . .
This is an outright lie. It is not that liberals couldn't care less about protecting the physical safety and wellbeing of children, it just that we know their civil liberties can be protected at the same time without endangering their health or safety. You don't. You can't. The right-wing is pathologically incapable of dealing with such a concept.
. . . government has a compelling interest in doing so.
This is an unwarranted assumption at best. There is no reputable evidence to uphold the contention, and it continues to reverberate throughout the right-wing echo chamber simply because it is a necessary falsehood for the promotion of censorship.
Attacks on children in libraries by men who have been stimulated by Internet porn are well documented.
Excuse me? Those attacks were motivated solely by internet porn? The fact that those assailants were latent child-molesters had nothing to do with it? They could not possibly have been motivated by
Adults fondling themselves in plain view of others, including children have also been documented.
How many adult males enter into public libraries on a daily basis? How many of those view triple X of five X rated material? How many of those fondle themselves in public? Or molest children? What kind of a fractional percentage are we talking about here and how, exactly, does that create a compelling interest in censorship?
You do understand, don't you, that this is Orwellian thinking? The idea that all males who perform Y are double-plus, ungood crimethinkers or want to be? You do understand, do you not, that you are violating the civil right of unguessable numbers of law abiding males to be presumed innocent until proven guilty? You do know, don't you, that what you are proposing is to punish the overwhelming majority for the actions of the underwhelming minority?
No. Of of course you don't.
By the way, should I accuse conservatives of not caring about children for ignoring the fact that the majority of molestation victims are victimized by their own fathers in their own homes?
. . . the ACLU recognizes that filtering software is a great solution to this problem . . .
This is another misrepresentation if not another outright lie. The ACLU only recognized that filtering is the lesser of two current evils. They told the court involved that filtering would be less burdensome than the alternative that was being touted by the censorial.
Lastly, why can't liberals engage in honest debate without the hate mongering name calling. Really, "censormorons" is unnecessary.
Censormorons is exactly the right word for them. Take it up with D.H. Lawrence if you don't like it, or stop identifying yourself as one by proclaiming so loudly that the shoe fits. Tell me something, Dave. Why can't the right-wing engage in honest debate? Why does its members have to rely on one outright lie after another. In some cases, lies that have been thoroughly debunked and which they have been told are lies? Why is it the right-wing can't refrain from smear tactics when talking to or
about anyone who will not pander to their invincible ignorance? You're squalling about a lack of civility is just another right-wing trick to try chill speech that is critical of the right-wing.
And this after you accused all liberals of acting in collusion with child molesters and abusers.
Oh, yes, and one last thing. You have failed to define pornography. Which is something which the right-wing would not allow even if it were possible. It would really put a cramp in a person's censorship efforts if there were objective criteria by which something could be proved to be exempt from those efforts.