If public libraries are awarded the right to filter pornographic content on their Internet workstations, what are the possible after-effects of such a ruling? Does it set the stage for public libraries to block other types of content, for instance, so-called “copy-protected” material?
“The ACLU and the American Library Association have claimed that so-called smut-blocking software is problematic for two reasons: It doesn’t do a good job of preventing access to porn, while it blocks many legitimate websites.”
My opinions on this issue are mixed. I would love to know that people couldn’t access pornography at my public library or schools. Personally, I think porn is a joke. To think that a man or a woman can be so pathetic as to “get off” from seeing a two-dimensional image or movie on their computer screen. (Yeah, sure, I’ve looked at plenty of nudie pics in my lifetime, but not as a sexual experience. Woman are simply beautiful!) But at the same time, I’m worried that if a public library is allowed to filter one type of content, the list can only grow soon afterward.
But you all can make you own comments. Click here for the “Porn-Filter Trial Gets Raunchy” story at Wired.com, or click here for the related “Porn-Filter Judge Boots Public” story.
Related Posts
- Public Forum on Internet Filtering This Monday in Australia
- InnoVal’s Responsible Internet Filtering Initiative
- Culver City, CA Adds Pornography and Copyright Filtering Technology to Public Wireless Network
- Aussie Christian Group Demands Mandatory Porn Filtering
- Australian Government to Finance Faulty Internet Filtering Technology
Loading ...
