children accessing porn; adults turning off filterwar

[earl young]

Hi Chuck:

I agree that you ought to be able to see the movie in Oklahoma.  I also
agree with Shirl - and she jumped me pretty hard too.  I am not arguing
that people shouldn't have the right to post stuff on the 'net.  The
thread didn't start as a First Amendment thing - but that's become the
flag several of the respondents have wrapped around themselves.  It's a
shame that isn't the issue that started the thread.

Your local B. Dalton is a commercial enterprise, not a
taxpayer-subsidized government activity.  It's not uncommon in these
threads to see people take various cheap shots at mayors and city
council members, and such an attitude of disrespect to the process
(political) that pays the salaries strikes me as unsettling in
government employees.  It is very common in private firms to have rigid
policies against using the Web to view "suggestive" material if for no
other reason than the firm can be sued because such material contributes
to the creation of a hostile environment. Miller Beer is being sued as
this is written because an employee claims that talk about the Seinfeld
masturbation episode caused emotional distress.  So your argument in
favor of absolute free speech is not the law of the land, and is in fact
becoming less instead of more prevelant as various competing "rights"
wind their way through the courts.  Such rights not only can be
narrowed, it's happening literally every week.

It is within such contexts that I return to my original question - what
is the case for providing access to such material in libraries?

Earl