children accessing porn; adults turning off filterware (was Re: Selection)

[Mark Wilden]

> From: earl young <eayoung at cais.com>
> 
> Where does freedom of speech imply a freedom of taxpayer-funded
> listening?  And where does any of that mitigate the side-effects some
> see when children are exposed to inappropriate material?  I asked what
> the arguments were that favor children having access to pornography. 
> You said "First Amendment".  I asked where the First Amendment created a
> duty of government to pay for such things.

And I answered that the government does not pay for such things. What the filtering proponents are
suggesting instead is that the government pay extra _not_ to allow access to this stuff.

>You reply that I am not
> addressing "freedom of listening."  You're right - I'm not.  I'm back to
> why it's a good idea to provide children access to pornography in
> libraries.

Well, if you don't want to respond to my reason why filtering is a "bad thing," then you don't.

I'm as unsure as you whether kids seeing pornography is a good thing or not. But I think
_allowing_ them to (especially since it costs less to do so than otherwise) is a good thing,
because otherwise you're into censorship. And letting librarians make decisions that should be
made by parents is definitely a "bad thing."

> I don't know whether it's a good idea or not.  But it is a core problem
> in the issue of whether and how to filter.

Only if you don't believe that the First Amendment confers the right to listen to protected
speech, as well as to speak it. Which seems obvious to me. Would there really be free speech if
anyone could make seditious statements, but the government censored them before anyone could hear?

>  And until someone can make
> the case that it is a good idea, we ought to be a little more tolerant
> of those who think it may do some damage.

It may indeed do some damage. I don't dispute that possibility. The question here is whether
librarians should make that decision.

> Your closing sentence about parents and not librarians being responsible
> for what their children see raises the issue of whether parents pushing
> for filters are in fact exercising that responsiblity.

The problem is that they are trying to exercise that responsibility on behalf of _all_ parents.
They are trying to filter what other people's children see, not just their own.