we still remember mitch hedberg

A severed foot is the ultimate stocking stuffer.

Jun 23rd 2003

justice stevens favors pr0n over children

recently, the supreme court ruled 6-3 that libraries must either filter sexually explicit material or lose significant federal funding. the constitutionality of the filters seems to rest on the fact that government has a compelling interest to shield minors from the material to which they could be exposed on the internet, and the filters are the best technology available at this time. it is also understood that patrons may ask that the filter be disabled on their computer if it “overblocks,” or mistakenly blocks sites that are non-pr0nographic.


justices john paul stevens, david h. souter, and ruth bader ginsburg were not satisfied with this. they feel that anything that requires one to exert effort to turn on and off must be unconstitutional. they don’t have any lightswitches in their homes. they only use the clapper®.


stevens, souter, and ginsburg would rather subject innocent 9-year olds to n@ked pictures than ask people who’re interested in the material to simply walk over to the desk and ask a librarian to disable the filter.

excerpts from both sides are available here. or read the syllabus from the reporter of decisions.

one thing from the dissent by stevens. he proposes “optional filtering, privacy screens, recessed monitors, and placement of unfiltered internet terminals outside of sight-lines” instead of the standard presence of filters. he also proposes merging america’s libraries with america’s adult books stores, two institutions that he says, “go together like a wink and a smile, if you know what i mean.” he then smiled and winked, and this frightened reporter excused himself from the justice’s chamber.

i glanced back as i exited the room, and i could see him turn to his computer. i began to run, gasping for air…

people have asked me what was on that computer screen, but, fortunately, i don’t know. he must’ve had some kind of privacy screen, or maybe a recessed monitor. whew!


in a related story, local pr0nographic shop owners breathed a sigh of relief with the ruling. they are grateful that customers will still have to visit their brick and masochist, er…mortar…stores to get their fix rather than being satisfied for free at the nation’s great public libraries. i guess people at the libraries will have to return to the boring old task of reading books. blah! and pr0n is so much more exciting!

several hicks were outraged, however.

One Response to “justice stevens favors pr0n over children”

  1. Reginleif the Valkyrie

    Gee, Travis, do you think you could write a more blatantly misleading and sensationalistic headline, please? That one was just too placid and fair-minded.

    This article makes some good points about why anti-“porn” filters on library PCs aren’t all they’re cracked up to be. I myself remember America Online provoking the ire of breast cancer patients by banning the word “breast,” making it impossible for them to speak frankly in their online support groups. And the residents of Scunthorpe, England weren’t too happy when AOHell banned them from mentioning the name of their town, due to the naughty word spelled by its second through fifth letters.

    And as a childfree woman, I must say that I’m really, really tired of hearing the refrain “It’s for the chiiiillllldruuuun!” every time someone wants to raid my wallet or limit my rights. Seems like all you have to do to be taken seriously in this country is blather on about how much you looooove kids, and how much anyone who disagrees with your politics or policies is obviously a child-hater.