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 (49359)	6/7/2002 6:55:06 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I voiced my objection to the following statement made by the Director of the National Library Association: "The only way to protect children is to make sure they are educated so they can have a safe responsible experience," You've mentioned this quote several times. I'm not sure what about it so bothers you. Perhaps the Director should have said "the best way" rather than "the only way." There are other ways to protect kids. You can keep them in a bubble, after all. But that's not practical. It may not even be legal. The best way is to teach them, just as it always has been. We teach children about which places are more or less safe to go and which things are more or less safe to do. We teach them that it is not safe to run into the street, to go off with strangers, to walk in dark alleys, to use drugs. When they're still too little to understand or to reliably act upon what we teach them, we watch them. Once we find we can trust them, we let them make choices for themselves. I don't see that there's anything about the internet as a venue that changes that paradigm any more than the invention of the light bulb or the automobile or the television changed that paradigm. It changes only the particulars.

To: one_less who wrote (49359)	6/7/2002 10:07:35 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I see. My position is that, every body in our society is "in the business" of protecting kids. I don't think its worth the federal government assuming unconstitutional powers in order to protect kids esp. because 1 - I think it is primarily a matter for the parents and 2 - When that fails the state and local governments should be able to do anything the federal government could do in this area. If I did think that massive government intervention was needed, and I did think that somehow the state and local government are and would always be incompetent to deal with it then I would call for amending the constitution rather then violating it. I suppose the argument that the feds have jurisdiction would be that the internet is used for interstate commerce, but you where talking about regulating libraries not all of the internet. If you where to require that all internet services have such blocking software then I would argue against it on a first amendment basis and on general libertarian principles. Tim