Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (134839)	4/2/2001 9:41:13 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Karen, allow me to respond by sticking precisely to the points you state as "ineffective". 1. It affronts the long-standing and important tradition of libraries not censoring, Libraries today censor material they deem offensive. You can't view seriously XXX rated material at the library. They don't have magazines on beasteality, and such. Even relatively innocuous X rated magazines like Penthouse and Playboy, are kept away from children at most libraries. The internet is an entirely different format. Any pornographic material dreamed up is assessable with a few clicks of the mouse. Therefore, your point is not valid. Censoring deeply offensive pornographic material already occurs at the library. They simply don't purchase it. 2. it inserts the Federal government where it doesn't need to be I agree, the federal government shouldn't need to be involved unless organizations such the ACLU make it prohibitively expensive. Unfortunately, the ACLU is making the distribution of pornography to children at the library, one of their important cases. Therefore, the federal government may need to get involved, if only to give local towns the right to police their libraries at their own discretion. 3. it is difficult to administer Sorry, but this is just silly Karen. Putting a filtering program on a computer, and enforcing a no porn policy at the library is no more difficult then enforcing a no drinking or eating policy. 4. it doesn't accomplish what it intends, If you mean it's not 100% foolproof, you're right. Neither is magazines behind the counter, age limits to movie houses, or any other child limiting mechanism. I'm sure kids still sneak into X rated movie house back doors, grab a magazine when the teller isn't looking, or get an older friend to purchase a book for them. No system is going to be perfect. Therefore, this mechanism need not meet that standard. The real question you should be asking instead is this; is it more or less likely children will see pornographic images with filtering software, then without. And the answer is, it's absolutely less likely. That's one of the main reasons AOL is so popular with families, and filtering software such as Net Nanny are one of the most popular downloads on the net. 5. it doesn't accomplish what it intends, and it is unnecessarily burdensome on adults. I've already answered the first part of your statement. As far as the second part goes. Adults can watch porn on their home computer if they want to. It's not a right to have an internet connection at the library, and especially not a right to view porn on it. I can almost guarantee if a vote were taken, people would overwhelmingly vote to ban porn from library internet connections. It wouldn't even be close. For most people, the last thing they want to do at the library is surf for porn. So what real burden are you talking about Karen?