Not necessarily. From a brief scan, it seems to me more that it is a case of “anything good to make the perceived enemy looking less agreeable”. A fairly decent tactics when one lacks real arguments.
5 Likes
I have had a brief perusal of (I’m assuming) your blog, and it seems to make very little sense; mainly it appears you are upset that libraries, apparently, are anti-religion, and inherently ‘left wing’ from what I can gather reading the various whaagarbl. Also, they are (somehow?) ‘pushing porn’ onto children. You know the adage ‘If you meed nothing but assholes all day…’?
Have fun sailing.
6 Likes
#onesentencescreenplays
6 Likes
Needs a third act.
2 Likes
Like, perhaps, the author acting up?
3 Likes
Seems like it should involve a sailing trip.
3 Likes
Yeah jeez this does illustrate just how pointless an internet filter on a library computer is, when every cheap smartphone in the world can instantly bypass it.
Of course the kinds of people using library computers might be those who probably can’t afford a smartphone for whatever reason, but over time the cost of these things is trending to zero.
I understand the concern about exposing kids in the library to porn, but filters seem to be a solution that does more overall harm than good.
8 Likes
Still not quite getting it. As has been explained, your account was locked by an automated spam filter because you posted URLs. I don’t think any were actually removed because of community flagging. In any case, all your brilliant arguments were published.
“Derision is the new censorship”
That’s what it comes down to, isn’t it? The idea that criticism is censorship.
People are tired of arguing about free speech with guys who are using principles to dress up trivial entitlements, such as being listened to on the internet. This is probably why you’re mocked and ignored.
10 Likes
It’s certainly on the list of why he’s mocked and ignored, but is really far from the only reason!
1 Like
That’s a polite way of putting it. His tautologies read very like a school essay where the student figured it was better to hand in something than nothing, even though they couldn’t find a single statement in the source text to support their assertions.
4 Likes
And his most outlandish claim proved false. Lead with the best you got. Make it verifiable.
1 Like
that’s an unusual reading of the opinion, but in a way, I suppose it is at least somewhat defensible.
The Court’s plurality does not treat blocking affecting adults as censorship, but chooses to describe a library’s act in filtering content as simply an instance of the kind of selection from available material that every library (save, perhaps, the Library of Congress) must perform. Ante, at 11 (“A library’s need to exercise judgment in making collection decisions depends on its traditional role in identifying suitable and worthwhile material; it is no less entitled to play that role when it collects material from the Internet than when it collects material from any other source”). But this position does not hold up.
From Souter’s dissent. 539 US 194
The opinion of the court does not mention the word “censorship”, so if one likes ones court opinions to be sloppy, I suppose you could infer some sort of implication.
(Interestingly, I can confirm that the Library of Congress appears to filter its internet, in a way that impedes fine arts research, even though children are not admitted to the Reading Rooms. But, since since my specific research was not directly impeded, I didn’t make further inquiries)
First amendment law is also likely to be quite unstable in the next few years, owing to a recent decision, so your reliance on this decision is doubly misplaced.
5 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
