No More Porn at Starbucks

[the sound of Tao]

I’m not sure why suggesting that most people would already likely show ‘reasonable restraint’ in not viewing porn in public where others including minors may be impacted is such a problem. That there may not even have been an incident of this let alone a significant pattern of behaviour might suggest that this all may hopefully be moot.

I do believe that education is the first line of defence and that surely we as a society should through education and awareness work towards developing a self moderating society and try to therefore minimise the needs of policing behaviour where possible.

I think ‘being reasonable’ is ultimately what everyone should try to work towards to save unnecessary conflict in life and avoid spinning out and creating a state where any of this would then need to make its way into the courts.

I also was being relatively light spirited and not overly ‘serious’ and not really making fun of anyone or anything except perhaps a few tongue in cheek moments for the circumstances.

 

[jackelsson]

Interesting thread. No offense meant, but to be honest this feels like a very American discussion to me that simply might not come up in other parts of the world. Somewhere else sorry people who cannot restrain themselves enough would likely just be yelled at and thrown out of a shop and that's that.

 

[bonzo75]

Interesting thread. No offense meant, but to be honest this feels like a very American discussion to me that simply might not come up in other parts of the world. Somewhere else sorry people who cannot restrain themselves enough would likely just be yelled at and thrown out of a shop and that's that.

This is not an American discussion there are no guns involved... Unless you are referring to the big guns

 

[Barry2013]

"Porn community?" "Reasonable restraint?"
OK this is getting serious. I doubt if lawyers make money from these kind of cases. We take an oath to defend the constitution and unpopular causes. That is why you see the ACLU defending the right of the KKK right tp hold marches and demonstrations. They are defended by the same people who believe the content of their speech is worthless and offensive and in violation of the Bill of Rights.

Starbucks has no obligation to offer me free wi-fi. Once they do they have to do so In a constitutional matter. Suppose I walked pass someone filing an application for membership to the KKK. I then threaten to organize a boycott of Starbucks if they do not block access to that site. That is content based censorship. The argument is yes they have the right to express their belief and associate with others with similar views. It could be argued that thier beliefs are so worthless that they don't warrant protection. Suppose that same person turned around and objected to my ability to use Starbucks to join an organization they found offensive. Surely you can see where this is going.

I'm often very grateful for the lawyers' skills of forensic analysis without which we can so easily get into all sorts of problems, but they need to be applied with a large helping of common sense.

 

[Gregadd]

Our old friend common sense. The law becomes involved usually when common sense has failed.

 

[jeff1225]

Interesting thread. No offense meant, but to be honest this feels like a very American discussion to me that simply might not come up in other parts of the world. Somewhere else sorry people who cannot restrain themselves enough would likely just be yelled at and thrown out of a shop and that's that.

You have a point. Political correctness has infected America.

 

[Gregadd]

That first amendment is a bitch.
I would call it constitutional correctness.

 

[Barry2013]

Our old friend common sense. The law becomes involves usually when common sense has failed.

Touche!

 

[Mark Warner]

Let us put aside for a moment the fact that I have to get my news from comedians in order to make it palatable. Starbucks has no obligation to offer internet to its' customers. But once it does, it has to do so in a constitutionally permissible manner. It could make for a very interesting court case. Will they have to provide a separate room to prevent accidental viewing by minors?

What language in the constitution or Bill of rights restricts a private corporation from content filtering on their private access network?

Starbucks is not a utility, nor a government entity. Actually, from my experience content filtering is de riguer on most government administered networks.

Is there some obscure case law I am not aware of regarding this?