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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (49272)	6/6/2002 10:13:40 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 82486

EXcellent article Kholt.

To: Lane3 who wrote (49272)	6/6/2002 10:32:50 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

I found this article very interesting. washingtonpost.com maybe you have already read it, but if not it is worth a read.

To: Lane3 who wrote (49272)	6/6/2002 3:03:22 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I agree that filters don't work but I disagree that the feds should not have some guiding, legislative, and even policing role where "harmful to children" is an issue. It seems like the cart is before the horse on this issue. There is a long history of library science. There are methods and procedures involved that could be looked over to obtain at least a piece of the solution. For starters, I do not understand why children can simply browse and select sites at the library without supervision. If a child wants to view several sites related to Florence Nightingale, for example, a librarian could check to see if any of them are R rated or above and then authorize the research from a central location. Hasn't it always been the role of a librarian to "check out" material. I don't trust librarians to simply use their own judgement which is why I think the government should be involved at least at the level of defining what is restricted (R) material and what liabilities librarians have.