80,000 porn sites vs. a few dozen non-porn

[Filtering Facts]

Karen Schneider wrote:
>I know if
>dozens of *books* were summarily removed from our library shelves by a
>company interested in managing our collection, and we could not see what
>titles were removed--let's say they were expunged from the OPAC, and all
>acquisitions material was destroyed, and publishers' catalogs no longer
>listed the items--I'd consider that a fairly far-reaching case of
>censorship, regardless of how well-intended the company was.
>

I know that if my library were going to be forced to acquire 80,000
pornographic magazines that would be put in the hands of children, but I
could hire a company that would keep my library from aquiring them, but a
few dozen non-pornographic books would not be acquired in the process, I
wouldn't consider that a "far-reaching case of censorship."

I'd pay them and thank them for doing such a good job.

The fact that you have no qualms providing children with 80,000 pornographic
websites says a lot.

*****************************************************************************
David Burt	President, Filtering Facts
Website: 	http://www.filteringfacts.org
E-Mail:  	David_Burt at filteringfacts.org
Phone/Fax:	503 635-7048