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

[Diane Insley]

I would like to respectfully request that the proper venue for
this ongoing discussion is on the Filtering listserv.

Sincerely,
Diane Insley
dinsley at centuryinter.net
"My own opinion"

Filtering Facts wrote:

> 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