Replies

I'll play devil's advocate here.

Why stop at filtering porn? Why not religious web sites as well...political pages, gun pages (and military recruitment pages too...they like guns, ya know?), maybe history pages (all of that violence with bombs and swords and stuff), pages dealing with cultural and political stuff (none of that marriage at 14, dssitent rage against powerful leaders and all of that)?

First, is there some written law about pornography that specifies an age limit for access to porn..like there is for a driver's license, alcohol or tobacco purchase?

Your everyday sitcom and talk show portrays a far more seedy and smutty scenario than a naked chick and perhaps a copulating couple (Springer comes to mind!) Ditto the sexual innuendo and vaguely cloaked erotica taht garners Emmys and Grammys and such.

Porno? Your 42nd president cornored the market on porno and the use of inanimate objects in sexual rtituals (as well as showed kids that oral sex "isn't really sex" and that lying under oath is an acceptable practice...and the elected congress validated those notions by failing to address and demand accountability for those actions.

The Supreme Court has difficulty defining ponography. Right or wrong, there are laws addressing internet content and, thus far, porn seems toevade any restrictions.

No...I do not want kids googling at porn (though every adolescent male since the founding of this country has hidden Playboy, Penthouse (and before that, Stag, etc.) u9nder his mattress (and Mom knew it was there but either fialed to confiscate it or ask about it).

Locking filters? Farenheit 451?

I'm don;t care for Big Brother further structuring my life. I especially don't care for any group of non-elected, self appointed "citizens" telling the libary what they can maintain and what they can't. When freedom of press (and librarys are indeed press) becomes directed by a vigilante group, we have a far greater problem that a little smut.