While I loathe the idea of kids viewing porn or hate sites on the Internet -- especially at school -- the question becomes, where does one draw the line? Thus is the consequence of free speech. While there are some sites out there that pretty much every sane, reasonable adult can agree is porn/hate/objectionable towards children, most falls into a gray area. Once you block one site, a dangerous ball begins rolling into that gray area. I personally feel that it's less dangerous to keep the Internet free, teach our children well, and trust they will make reasonable decisions for themselves what is/is not objectionable. AOL is a good example. I read a study several months ago about their child safety blocks. For instance, with the block activated, the Republican party's website is allowed, but the Democratic party's site is blocked. Several anti-choice sites were allowed while pro-choice sites were blocked. Christian sites ok, non-Christian religious sites not ok. GLBT sites? No way! Blah, blah, blah. What it boils down to is, yes, I'd want my children (if I had any) to be diverted from some sites, but I don't want *you* to decide that for me. The only solution in a public forum is, don't block any sites. I also personally believe that, in some cases, it's better to allow kids to see so-called "objectionable" or controversial material in order to let them participate in making their own moral descions. As a Pagan/Wiccan for instance, I contend that nothing will turn a child away from Christianity faster than attending a fundamentalist church. As someone highly pro-choice, I encourage my young friends and relatives to read anti-choice literature in hopes they will further educate themselves on both sides of the issue. - Mary Wood _______________________________________________ issues mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
