while blocking porn may not be censorship, it always involves blocking things that aren't porn -- which is. either that or it doesn't effectively block porn. THATS the issue at hand.
What if they offered a section of the library without blocks, for the perv patrons, and one with blocks, for those who choose to be porn free? Innocent kids or inexperienced adults can wind up at a porn site by accident. Easily. They should have the freedom to choose blocking. If that is not available, then you have to block for all. Blocking doesn't make it illegal for the pervs to view their porn. They just can't do it in public. But not blocking harms those who do not wish to view it.
Either provide an option for both sides, the moral and the immoral, or go only with the moral way, because that's the only way EVERYONE gets to stay free.
while blocking porn may not be censorship, it always involves blocking things that aren't porn -- which is. either that or it doesn't effectively block porn. THATS the issue at hand.That's one of the issues at hand. The other issue has to do with defining porn. I suspect, for example, that several of my fellow members of the FreeRepublic would define the lingerie section of the Sears Catalog as porn. And I also suspect there are more than a few leftist librarians who would include the FreeRepublic on their list of pornographic sites.