I think Further up Further in was Re: Black pages

[Elisabeth Roche]

Its a smoke screen!.. to put the power of access rights to electronic media
in our homes into the hands of the "big money guys".

I concur with your comments, but remember what this is really about..
BIG BUCKS!...

eroche ace at opus1.com

----fwd-----------------------------
At 07:34 AM 2/13/96 -0800, Marcia Tucker wrote:
>Bravo to Elisabeth Roche and others like her!
>
>If anyone believes that this Telecommunications Bill will not 
>discriminate, silence, or be used to prosecute
>individuals unfairly than they are naive! 
>
>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.  In this country I thought that we had a separation
>of church and state, obviously we are moving toward less
>of a separation!  Scary thing is that people around me keep
>on saying, "oh... they won't inforce it", and "they really 
>are not moving toward censorship, just protecting our children!"
>(I am a librarian and a parent)
>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!
> 
>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!
>The Internet can never be a baby sitting service or
>a playground which allows children to freely roam
>regardless of this bill!  There is already available
>censoring software which could aid parents/teachers if they are worried,
>so why the Bill?  
>
>I guess in this election year if you can't kiss the babies you can
>at least try to satisfy their parents by S.652 lip service! 
>
>
>Elisabeth Roche wrote:
>> 
>> If our role is to be librarians, and eagerly (a given, right?) try to find
>> information for the pursuing and perusing public, then we have no choice.
>> 
>> If by some abberation of the forces of the universe, in the United States we
>> have found ourselves in a posture of civil disobedience, then at least our
>> consciences are clear. (was that the correct conscience? I sure hope so:-))
>> 
>> We can follow through on this civil disobedience or we can work around the
>> problem and we will all do what we think is the correct thing to do, being
>> professional information scientists, let's not lose sight of this truth
>> while others try to take this away from us.
>> 
>> Whatever each of us decides to do we still stand together in a fight against
>> censorship and restriction of books and learning and information for all the
>> people of the US who come from a tradition of our original colonial
>> forebears commitments to access to information.(see Benjamin Franklin -
smile)
>> 
>> [I wore my "I Read Banned Books button" all day and the grocery checker said
>> "You read banned books?" Well, that got the attention of everyone!" )We got
>> into a discussion right there in the line at the store. It was great.
>> 
>> Everyone around were bringing up books on the banned list (they were all
>> correct, amazing what the "normal real people" we are all part of know isn't
>> it:?]
>> 
>> It turned into quite a fun "I read Banned Books" episode at the grocery
>> store...
>> 
>> Be ready and use it I say!:-)))  I did say, "look at my website, you could
>> read banned books there",
>> 
>> The checker said really, "give me your url!!!!
>> 
>> So, talk about it and make it happen!!"
>> 
>> Elisabeth Roche ace at opus1.com
>> http://www.opus1.com/~ace
>> serendipity RULES!
>