Selection

[Ronnie Morgan]

At 04:40 PM 7/3/97 -0700, Shaken Angel wrote:
>
>I think the argument by the pro-censorship folks on this list about how
>filtering is okay since libraries already "filter" by the selection of
>materials process is a bogus one.  The Internet, merely by being brought
>into the library, is "selected".  Making inaccessible parts of the
>Internet through the arbitrary application of morality is, in my mind,
>akin to ripping out pages 23, 46 and 54 of some book because you don't
>like what was said on those pages.

I don't think David and I profess as being "pro-censorship"...  At least, I
KNOW I don't.

As David said, the internet is NOT a single work, it is a collection of
works, and we do not suggest that you rip out pages in a book.  When you
block a site, you are getting rid of the ENTIRE book, not selected pages
within the book.

Something else that was interesting, and the real reason why I'm posting
this, last night on a TV show called "The Web", they had two people on that
talked about porn on the net.  One was a co-owner for a porn site, and the
other was a part of "Enough is Enough" an organization that is against
child access to porn on the net.  I'm sorry, but I don't remember thier
names.  What was the most interesting (besides the fact that they both gave
the same arguements as both sides have on this list) is the fact that
technology DOES exist on better controlling who accesses the stuff.  The
lady from Enough is Enough suggested that all porn sites have an extension
of .xxx instead of .com.  That is an EXCELLIENT idea!  You could set your
software to ignore all .xxx sites, and would effectiving remove 100% of the
porn on the net. 

And the point I'm trying to make by bringing this out, everyone keeps
saying that NOTHING can be done about it, you say that you agree that kids
should not have access to porn but since the technology isn't there to keep
them out, you shouldn't filter.  But as I have been trying to say, the
technology **IS** there, we just have to come up with something that is
acceptable on both sides of the issue, and the suggestion above is an
example of someone not believeing this "technology isn't there" junk.  

Also, the post about ALA and it's stand on filters is irrelevant (at least
to this debate) since it can't be argued that children have the "right" to
porn.  And, since adults can/should ask to have the filter program turned
off, no one is losing thier "Constitutionally protected speech".


Ronnie

Disclaimer:  Views expressed are mine and mine alone.  My views or opinions
are NOT representative to Harding University.