Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: yendu bwam
The ALA is committed nationally to the myth that filters somehow damage free speech.

I thought justice was blind-- even color-blind. I can't remember-- do HATE crimes really exist in law, or was it all just a bad dream? Hard core and porn on the internet ought to be considered a HATE crime, because it really has nothing to do with sex (speech)-- but a lot to do with hate and violence (the product or result). Right? You know, like rape-- it's not about the sex, it's about the feeling of POWER and making other people feel powerless. Taking a more liberal point of view can be so much more refreshing-- Has anyone ever tried that one on the Supremes? Public libraries could swear to help prevent hate crimes-- you know, like the rest of us swore to look out for terrorists. :-)

7 posted on 05/31/2002 9:21:18 PM PDT by let freedom sing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: let freedom sing
Taking a more liberal point of view can be so much more refreshing-- Has anyone ever tried that one on the Supremes? Public libraries could swear to help prevent hate crimes-- you know, like the rest of us swore to look out for terrorists. :-)

Clever idea. But again, nobody is saying that that foul stuff can't be posted on the internet (an abridgement of free speech). But no one should be forced to be a consumer of it (which has nothing to do with free speech). A town library (representing the townspeople) does not have to feel compelled to consume disgusting free speech. I believe the Supreme Court will easily see this.

9 posted on 06/03/2002 7:30:38 AM PDT by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson