Replies

People are looking and arguing this based on a "right" to view pornography, which is missing the point of the real issue.

There is no filtering software available that functions perfectly to block out all "pornographic" material while allowing anything that is not "pornographic" to pass through it. Any filtering software used will, as a consequence, restrict access to legitimate information on the internet because of some tripped keyword. The issue isn't about viewing porn so much as throwing up a big barrier for information because someone might go in to look at naughty pictures.

Library officials and free-speech advocates say the filtering technology used to block Internet porn is imperfect and can also inadvertently block important information on health, sexuality and social issues.

This is no different than the problem with Playboy magazine.

If you ban Playboy, you are also banning the Playboy interview and other non-pornographic stuff in the magazine.

To which the answer is: Tough.

The issue isn't about viewing porn so much as throwing up a big barrier for information because someone might go in to look at naughty pictures.

That is not the issue. Not even remotely.

If it were just about "loss of information," the ALA activists would be willing to take a reasonable position on what can or cannot be viewed on these publicly owned internet access points.

"Reasonable" is defined in the same sense that libraries do not prominently display Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, etc. on the normal magazine racks -- if they have them in-house at all. It's quite simply inappropriate for a publicly-owned enterprise to distribute smut.

Instead, the ALA has taken a preposterous all-or-nothing approach that can best be interpreted as yet another extension of the libertine sexual agenda that we see wherever liberals make their homes.