[Always Right]

You don't understand my point at all, as you are looking at it through blinders. I am against GOVERNMENTAL censorship.

You really don't get it. This has NOTHING, repeat NOTHING, repeat ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, to do with GOVERNMENTAL censorship. This is about empowering the PARENT with the choice. The government lets the PARENT decide if their child can or can not acess pornographic material. Right now the government is empowering the child to decide against the wishes of the vast majority of parents.

[ought-six]

"You really don't get it. This has NOTHING, repeat NOTHING, repeat ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, to do with GOVERNMENTAL censorship. This is about empowering the PARENT with the choice. The government lets the PARENT decide if their child can or can not acess pornographic material. Right now the government is empowering the child to decide against the wishes of the vast majority of parents."

No, friend, it 's YOU who doesn't get it. A public library is a GOVERNMENTAL facility! I handle litigation for a natiowide insurer, and our clients are ONLY public entities (i.e., governments and government-run operations). My point was that if a library commission -- which is a governmental body, no matter which way you slice it -- installs filters, it is censorship. Where you want to toss into the equation a bunch of irrelevant variables, I want to reduce it to its lowest common denominator (i.e., governmental censorship). Believe me, if a group of parents lobbied a library board that they wanted to restrict access to, say, religious material, and the library board then restricted access to such material, YOU are just the type of person who would be crying "Governmental censorship!" to the high heavens, and you know it.