Posted on 12/31/2003 1:58:40 AM PST by plan2succeed.org
What a profound statement. Now, how in the World do you know that?
I believe that the moral degradation of society is not the result of too much freedom. It is the opposite. As the legal system becomes more complicated and basic "rights" become twisted so that none of us are free to practice our own morality, immorality is allowed to flourish. Discussion of morality is being suppressed, so we are losing the ability to counter the immoral Left.
Families are losing the freedom to instruct their kids as they see fit. Their kids have lost the freedom to pray in school. Judges have lost the freedom to display the 10 commandments in their court room. God is taken out of the pledge. Citizens have lost the freedom to decorate the public square with a Manger scene. We are losing our freedom to defend ourselves from the scum of the earth with firearms. The police can no longer do their jobs effectively because they are losing the freedom to do their jobs in a logical manner.
Judges and lawyers are removing our freedom to make logical, moral, good decisions for ourselves and for our children. They do this by twisting the rights preserved for us in the Constitution. They cite a belief that there is supposed to be a "Separation of Church and State" in the Constitution, yet have twisted our freedom to practice religion (or morality) into their freedom "from" religion or the morality. I do believe that they should be free to be immoral or to not practice religion. However, they are now succeeding at twisting this notion into a right to restrict from the rest of us our right to religion and morality, which is where it is turning upside down.
More government, regulation, judicial activism and sleazy lawyering is removing all that is "good" from us and pushing all that is "bad" upon us, against our will. I believe that our focus should be on the former, more than on the latter. Without the ability to present "good" in public forums, our attempt to fight that which is "bad' is meaningless.
This is where we need to be vigilant - protecting our own freedom. Trying to remove their freedom is a lesser concern, and is one I am opposed to anywy.
You are well aware that some fight to preserve a questionable "right" to participate in morally questionable behavior, or view morally questionable material. They continue to win. At the same time, the Left continues to win with respect to suppressing any discussion of morality and decency. Basic Christian values are now considered evil when allowed openly in public.e aware.
Crusades against things like porn on library computers and the desire for governmental regulation in this regard is an acceptance of governmental control over our societal morality. Granting this power is dangerous, because governments are not moral. Attempting to derive morality from government will certainly fail.
We should focus on actually preserving our liberty to practice and make the case for morality, rather than focus on suppressing the liberty of others. By doing so, we can provide more access to basic decency and succesffully counter the immoral Left. Without our own liberty, the Left can continue to succeed in turning all that is right upside-down.
It requires faith that good can counter evil if good is allowed to flourish. It doesn't require as much faith as a belief that government can counter evil and be a force of good.
As usual, after a lengthy diatribe like this, somebody can probably post a 2 sentence, 100 year old quote that makes the same point I attempted to make here. I hope they do.
From the ALA website: "Censorship is a change in the access status of material, based on the content of the work and made by a governing authority or its representatives. Such changes include exclusion, restriction, removal, or age/grade level changes." Further, in the "Library Bill of Rights": "A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views."
Add to that the part they played in the challenges to the Child Online Protection Act and their position is pretty clear.
I don't think filtering software is a perfect solution. I think in general children should be accompanied by parents who are monitoring their behavior in any public place, including a library.
The obvious problem with that is parents cannot be with their kids 24/7. They have to work or go to the bathroom or sleep or whatever. The other problem with that is how easy it is to drop into a pornographic website by accident.
My favorite example of this is suppose you want to visit the POTUS's website. The address is www.whitehouse.gov. But not everyone knows that, and may by mistake type in www.whitehouse.com. If you do that, you go right to a pornographic website. And with a lot of these places, they like to flood your screen with pop-ups that multiply whenever you close one of them. Getting there may be an accident, but the url registry and unrelenting pop-ups are not.
So thinking that just removing the filters and standing behind your kid's shoulder with your fingers crossed will work out is really nothing more than a Pollyanic dream.
That's an avoidance.
That's also your opinion.
If this assessment is in error, you will have to prove it; not just to me, but also to everyone reading this.
In a liberal sort of way, I suppose you've "proven" your point. In other words, if the ALA doesn't endorse filtering software, it's actively encouraging children to view porn?
The obvious problem with that is parents cannot be with their kids 24/7. They have to work or go to the bathroom or sleep or whatever. The other problem with that is how easy it is to drop into a pornographic website by accident.
So let's turn our parenting responsibilities over to the government, in the form of the public library? Again, what a liberal concept!
So thinking that just removing the filters and standing behind your kid's shoulder with your fingers crossed will work out is really nothing more than a Pollyanic dream.
Considering that the Supreme Court upheld the Children's Internet Protection Act, if your library receives federal funding, you should have no problem (other than the fact the software isn't 100% effective).
Otherwise, I'd suggest accompanying your children when they visit the public library, and not allowing them to access the internet at home.
Excuse me while I spit out the words you keep trying to stuff in my mouth.
If you have a problem with the unfettered internet in YOUR public library, I suggest you fight to get the internet ripped out rather than having it filtered.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.