[r9etb]

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.

[Paraclete]

The ALA is like the NEA, AMA, and a lot of other organizations. A minority rams their agenda through . . . I am acquainted with many librarians and library boards and at the local level in most communities there is no intent to expose people to smut. We all need to make our views known at the local level. That's still where the salaries are paid in the library business.