a) point me to one filter that works. Not a white list a filter. I'll show you how a reasonably clever 14 year old will defeat it. I'll also show you good content that is filtered erroneously.
b) I'm sorry the arguement is getting old but it remains true. Parents are primarily responsible for their kids.
c) amazingly for all these cases you can't supply one better then 'a perv attacked a girl in a library with unfiltered internet', thats the nets or the librarys fault how? Were library staff watching the kid?
d) Parents who want everybody else to watch their kids are definitily not going to be interested in actually watching their kids. If your kid is too young to defend his/her self s/he should be monitored 24/7. Tough noogies for the parents if that cuts into their social lives.
Dinsdale,
a)
Finally, a Library Director Who Gets It contains information about a very happy library director happy with her library's excellent filter.
b) Yes, they are responsible, but why have filters at all if the parents are solely responsible? I'm saying existing law is not being followed. The law and the US Supreme Court already asked and answered these questions. I linked to the US v. ALA case above so people could read it. My arguments are based on the failure to follow the case and the law, not on my personal feelings or beliefs or morality or parental responsibility or whatever.
c) Here are more cases that I can supply, thank you for asking:
Examples of Crimes and Filters in Libraries
d) Parents are not asking that librarians watch their children. They are asking, or rather I am asking, that the existing law be applied. Us parents have a powerful ally behind us -- the US Supreme Court. All relevant questions have already been asked and answered in US v. ALA, Board of Educ. v. Pico, and others.
Take your pick as to what is more authoritative for you, the US Supreme Court or the American Library Association's "Office For Intellectual Freedom" headed by a former head of the Illinois ACLU.