Because Trump 2.0

[DKTanker]

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

No thanks, but If  thats was my agenda, Id just move to Florida.

Really?  How so?  Specifics please.

[17thfabn]

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

No thanks, but If  thats was my agenda, Id just move to Florida.

If you moved to Florida, assuming you are an adult, name one book or other type of media you wouldn't have access to? The only limits there are on young school age children.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, 17thfabn said:

If you moved to Florida, assuming you are an adult, name one book or other type of media you wouldn't have access to? The only limits there are on young school age children.

And can you absolutely guarantee its going to end there?

You know what its like when people get punch drunk with power, they push a little harder. And sooner or later it will not be just the school libraries, but the public ones too. Maybe then the students see an opportunity and demand to ban the Jewish authors, in sympathy with their Palestinian brothers. And suddenly they are all book burning on the college campus's.

Unlikely?  Well on an individual basis, people have been already doing it. And before anyone asks, no, I dont support burning Trumps book. It could be doing invaluable service as a coaster instead.

http://freespeechproject.georgetown.edu/tracker-entries/tennessee-public-library-fires-employee-for-burning-books-by-trump-and-coulter/

Suspected Colorado City incident

Sometime during the weekend of April 15–17, 2011, books and other items designated for a new public library in the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints polygamous community Colorado City, Arizona, were removed from the facility where they had been stored and burned nearby.^[238][239] A lawyer for some FLDS members has stated that the burning was the result of a cleanup of the property and that no political or religious statement was intended, however the burned items were under lock and key and were not the property of those who burned them.^[240]

 

 

 

 

 

[rmgill]

5 hours ago, urbanoid said:

Why not, I immensely enjoy the new twitter experience. With just minor reservations, i.e. bots, hate (and 'hate') doesn't bother me.

I liked the changes enough I got an account. 

[rmgill]

14 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

And can you absolutely guarantee its going to end there?

Well, we have this 1st amendment thing that limits that and a lot of case law. So folks will try and they'll be blocked in the courts due to that very objective limit. Like when they try to censor companies in the open. Now if they get them to do it behind the scenes, it takes a good bit of sunlight to deal with that. But it's the left in this country who's been doing that behind the scenes and in what amounts to an illegal conspiracy. 
 

14 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

You know what its like when people get punch drunk with power, they push a little harder. And sooner or later it will not be just the school libraries, but the public ones too. Maybe then the students see an opportunity and demand to ban the Jewish authors, in sympathy with their Palestinian brothers. And suddenly they are all book burning on the college campus's.

Do try protesting in the street and saying something naughty about the local council (so and so is a poofter!) or about Starmer. Let us know how that works from your prison cell. 

14 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Unlikely?  Well on an individual basis, people have been already doing it. And before anyone asks, no, I dont support burning Trumps book. It could be doing invaluable service as a coaster instead.

http://freespeechproject.georgetown.edu/tracker-entries/tennessee-public-library-fires-employee-for-burning-books-by-trump-and-coulter/

Ahh that's a great example. A liberal burning books by Trump. Note she was fired. So what precisely is the risk there? 
 

14 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Suspected Colorado City incident

Sometime during the weekend of April 15–17, 2011, books and other items designated for a new public library in the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints polygamous community Colorado City, Arizona, were removed from the facility where they had been stored and burned nearby.^[238][239]

 

That's Skywalkre land, not Foridaman Land. 

Considering you have muslim gangs going around raping white girls and other non muslims and your local polce response is self policing of the islamic community and a bunch of bowing and scraping and "Allah is good" catechism from the police chiefs, I think you're a but off the pitch and not even on the cricket field. 
 

14 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

A lawyer for some FLDS members has stated that the burning was the result of a cleanup of the property and that no political or religious statement was intended, however the burned items were under lock and key and were not the property of those who burned them.^[240]

Then theres an recourse of theft of property and destruction of same. 

[R011]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

And can you absolutely guarantee its going to end there?

 

 

Pretty much.  Any law trying to prevent bookstores, brick or online, from selling just about anything would be in violation of some long established First Amendment protections.  the US has given up on preventing the sale of the hardest of hardcore porn*, let alone controversial  literature.

* depictions of child porn excepted because producing it requires a serious crime, sexual assault of a child,  to be committed..

[rmgill]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_obscenity_law

Miller is the key case. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_obscenity_law

And I'll note that the only threshold is where it affects children from viewing prurient material. ACLU v Reno clearly found across the board bans to be over-broad and violating the 1st amendment. That was in the 90s. There were several more cases after that (CDA II, COPA and COPA II), each trying to find the line where the state could control content and that came to where the state itself buys the content. Essentially they pay for it, so they can chose whats in the library both what the library system accesses online AND what books they have. 

That's the extent of the allowance for censorship. It doesn't extend to people's homes for prurient material, or to book stores SAVE where it specifically exploits children. 

Then we had CPPA. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Pornography_Prevention_Act_of_1996


In short, I'll note that folks who call any of this banned books are lying.

Edited September 5, 2024 by rmgill

[Murph]

No this is going to get REAL interesting.  I bet they squirm, and do everything they can to prevent the release of those records.

 

 

[sunday]

4 hours ago, rmgill said:

I liked the changes enough I got an account. 

Reverse bellwether effect?

[Skywalkre]

1 hour ago, Murph said:

No this is going to get REAL interesting.  I bet they squirm, and do everything they can to prevent the release of those records.

 

 

I doubt it.  American First Legal has been spamming lawsuits and other judicial maneuvers in the last few years.  Their record on actually winning at anything is apparently pretty thin.  The reason they're doing this is so folks like you and similar FB-MAGA-warriors will just see the headlines and share it with your friends thinking it means something.

[17thfabn]

3 hours ago, Murph said:

No this is going to get REAL interesting.  I bet they squirm, and do everything they can to prevent the release of those records.

Odds are the first objection and ruling will be on if this organization has standing. Odds are they will be ruled to not have standing and the appeals will go on to different levels.

Edited September 5, 2024 by 17thfabn

[DKTanker]

8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

And can you absolutely guarantee its going to end there?

WTF is wrong with you that you are so eager to allow young children unfettered access to pornography?  When did it become verbotten to allow children to be children without their minds being sullied by adult perversions?

[DKTanker]

2 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

I doubt it.  American First Legal has been spamming lawsuits and other judicial maneuvers in the last few years.  Their record on actually winning at anything is apparently pretty thin.  The reason they're doing this is so folks like you and similar FB-MAGA-warriors will just see the headlines and share it with your friends thinking it means something.

Are you for or against the records being released?

[Skywalkre]

41 minutes ago, DKTanker said:

Are you for or against the records being released?

Whatever the law and precedence would dictate should happen is what I'm for.  I just don't trust that the accusations from American First Legal will hold up.  Wake me up when they start winning all these cases...

[NickM]

Accidentally got into a Google site and right on top is a story from HuffPo about how Trump "rambles incoherently when asked..."

[Josh]

3 minutes ago, NickM said:

Accidentally got into a Google site and right on top is a story from HuffPo about how Trump "rambles incoherently when asked..."

Well that seems fairly accurate. I provided a quote two pages ago that no one commented on; there are several fresh examples of you would like me to post the video - assuming you would actually watch.

[DKTanker]

51 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

Whatever the law and precedence would dictate should happen is what I'm for.  I just don't trust that the accusations from American First Legal will hold up.  Wake me up when they start winning all these cases...

So about the question.  Are you for open records and transparency or against?

[DKTanker]

14 minutes ago, Josh said:

Well that seems fairly accurate. I provided a quote two pages ago that no one commented on; there are several fresh examples of you would like me to post the video - assuming you would actually watch.

He's always rambled.  Go back 40 years and you'll find video of Trump rambling during any number of interviews.

[Skywalkre]

20 minutes ago, DKTanker said:

So about the question.  Are you for open records and transparency or against?

And I already answered that.  Whatever is legal and has precedent is what should be done.  If it's not normal or if it's not legal it shouldn't be changed or excused just for Trump.  He shouldn't get special treatment.

[DKTanker]

18 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

And I already answered that.  Whatever is legal and has precedent is what should be done.  If it's not normal or if it's not legal it shouldn't be changed or excused just for Trump.  He shouldn't get special treatment.

If something is legal why the requirement for precedent?  And no, you didn't answer the question, you obfuscated.

[Josh]

4 hours ago, DKTanker said:

He's always rambled.  Go back 40 years and you'll find video of Trump rambling during any number of interviews.

Ok, so your defense is he’s always been an idiot. I do not disagree. By his own admission, he had no idea what NATO was until he ran for president. And he’s hired the best people for his last administration, including the 80% of them on the record saying he’s unfit to be president.

That says something about him either way: either he chooses the worst people, or his people are right.

[rmgill]

I'm still trying to parse how you can make any quibbles over someone's lack of ability to speak when you were saying Joe was sharp as ever up until he was declared unfit to run for president but not unfit to BE president. 


 

[Stuart Galbraith]

I dont believe anyone said Biden was sharp as a tack.But I still think Nikki Haley's words have merit, the party to first jettison their octagenarian probably wins.

As for Trump, I seem to recall saying in 2016 he was a fucking idiot, for which I was roundly pilloried by the folks that had their finger on the pulse. Its interesting to note that people are saying 'well yes, of course he is an idiot, but...'

Words fail me.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

8 hours ago, DKTanker said:

WTF is wrong with you that you are so eager to allow young children unfettered access to pornography?  When did it become verbotten to allow children to be children without their minds being sullied by adult perversions?

Isnt it actually a question how your society has changed, that literature that was once considered classics (and im pretty sure anything by Hemmingway is), is now derogated as pornography? Is that your easy answer to everything, that anything that was banned must be pornography? Could it not be that the system in Florida is out of control, and they are banning anything that doesnt suit their Taliban like views? Could it also be that DeSantis, by making it more difficult to ban those books, realises what you dont, that its against civil liberty and an affront to civilisation to ban books? That it makes America look bad?

But no, by all means, make me look the unreasonable one here. Im not the one trying to defend the indefensible. But by all means, go and man those ramparts, somebody has to I guess.

[Stuart Galbraith]

12 hours ago, rmgill said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_obscenity_law

Miller is the key case. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_obscenity_law

And I'll note that the only threshold is where it affects children from viewing prurient material. ACLU v Reno clearly found across the board bans to be over-broad and violating the 1st amendment. That was in the 90s. There were several more cases after that (CDA II, COPA and COPA II), each trying to find the line where the state could control content and that came to where the state itself buys the content. Essentially they pay for it, so they can chose whats in the library both what the library system accesses online AND what books they have. 

That's the extent of the allowance for censorship. It doesn't extend to people's homes for prurient material, or to book stores SAVE where it specifically exploits children. 

Then we had CPPA. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Pornography_Prevention_Act_of_1996


In short, I'll note that folks who call any of this banned books are lying.

Then if a child goes into a school library and wants a copy of Stephen King or Hemmingway or Margaret Attwood, then they wont say 'sorry, we cant give you that?'

If they do, that is the very definition of a banned book. Yes, you can make a case that some books should be age restricted. In which case there should be a central board somewhere vetting books to see if they are suitable for that age group. Leaving up to parents arbitrarily to make the choice clearly is self evidently leading to ridiculous and contradictory results.

Its worth pointing out, Britain is now doing the same thing, so Im not saying we are in any way superior. But either way,  its a mistake to be denying children information, at the precise time when they need it. Rather than worrying about children knowing too much (which in my experience post internet they largely are aware of anyway), one has to wonder what the effect of censorship is going to have. What was it Orwell said, Ignorance is Strength?

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/books-being-banned-across-britain-181500274.html