Kathleene writes:
\”This is an (IMHO) horrifying piece about the ALA/ACLU lawsuit to stop
mantatory filtering. The author clearly refuses to understand the ALA\’s
position or the real problems with filters. It\’s the tired old \”the ALA
wants libraries to peddle porn to kids\” argument, but given a clear voice
and a highly-respected forum. He compares the lawsuit to Yahoo!\’s decision
to stop selling porn after the \”huge public outcry\” (which I thought much
exaggerated by the press).\”
I posted a couple quotes from the story below. He makes some interesting points.
Wall Street Journal, Editorial Page, April 20, 2001; Review & Outlook, \”Porn Again\”
Kathleene writes:
\”This is an (IMHO) horrifying piece about the ALA/ACLU lawsuit to stop
mantatory filtering. The author clearly refuses to understand the ALA\’s
position or the real problems with filters. It\’s the tired old \”the ALA
wants libraries to peddle porn to kids\” argument, but given a clear voice
and a highly-respected forum. He compares the lawsuit to Yahoo!\’s decision
to stop selling porn after the \”huge public outcry\” (which I thought much
exaggerated by the press).\”
I posted a couple quotes from the story below. He makes some interesting points.
Wall Street Journal, Editorial Page, April 20, 2001; Review & Outlook, \”Porn Again\”
\”In essence, the argument boils down to the idea that because filters are not
perfect, they are somehow unconstitutional. No business could ever take such
an absolutist position. That is what makes the comparison with Yahoo so
instructive\”
\”This is not to argue that the business world is more moral than the rest of
America. But in explaining Yahoo\’s move out of the porn business, CEO Jeff
Mallet said, \”Our main concern is our users. Their opinion matters most.\” If
only our libraries and their representatives could say the same about the
taxpayers who fund them?\”
Recent Comments