I think Further up Further in was Re: Black pages

[David L. King]

On Tue, 13 Feb 1996, Marcia Tucker wrote:

> I personally believe that this Bill has nothing to do with the
> adult images, adult discussions, etc... which currently
> reside on the Internet, it has to do with people who have a 
> moral agenda.  

snip - and ...

> This legislation has nothing to do with protecting children or anyone
> else of a sensitive nature, if this were the case than other issues
> in our society would be addressed which do threaten the mental and moral
> health of our children!
>  

Is that why the bill uses terminology like indecent and obscene images of 
a sexual nature, and mentions restrictions to people under 18 more than 
once? 

Do you honestly believe that our congressmen are part of a plot to 
change the current morals of American society? 

Please - read the bill, and stop watching the X-Files! :)

> I can not tolerate the bizarre idea that children have a "right" to
> be on the Internet/World Wide Web without some direction via an adult
> or teacher!  It would be similiar to having left a child alone in 
> Times Square (NYC) without any direction or help!

Oh, come on - you can't get physically mugged on the Internet! You can't 
be hit by a car through the WWW! The two are VERY different. And, what 
you're saying is rather bizarre, given your obvious slant towards first 
amendment rights - you seem to think that minors DON'T have a right to 
browse the WWW, unless they're "accompanied" by an adult "escort." 

Sorry if I came off harsh, but I really don't think that there's some 
overarching "moral power" at work here - I think it's just the work of a 
couple hundred old geezers in suits :)


		**************************************************
			David King
			Electronic Services Librarian
			University of Southern Mississippi
			dlking at ocean.st.usm.edu
			http://ocean.st.usm.edu/~dlking/
		**************************************************