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: one_less who wrote (49314)	6/6/2002 5:01:11 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Once that can be established, the secondary role of providing reasonable safe guards for children should be addressed. Yes, it should be addressed. By the library and the community. You have shown no reason why federal involvement would make kids safer. You have shown no reason why we should give this particular aspect of child protection federal attention as opposed to other risks to children such as guns and cars and peanut butter and pet dander. It is customary for the protection of children to be handled locally. That is the default. If you want the feds mucking around in it, the burden is on you to demonstrate why this particular need warrants special intervention.

To: one_less who wrote (49314)	6/6/2002 5:10:47 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

My only point is that I see it as the Libraries responsibility to control resources under their domain and to have a role in "checking out" resources. If by control resources you mean select materials for their collection, of course. If you mean limit what patrons may check out what materials, whether on the basis of age, gender, race, etc., no. That is the responsibility of the patron or, if the patron is a minor or dependent, the parent or guardian. I, for one, do not want the government or government employees anywhere near making the decision that 'this person may not check out this book or view this item because it is unsuitable for them." No. Nada. Nyet.