Good points. And, the old saw about not having the right to yell "Fire!! in a theater if there isn't one is appropriate.

Here, the question seems to bog down on the rights of "transmitters" and "receivers". Historically, the US upholds the right of folks to transmit almost anything. People can make up their own minds as to whether they want to "receive".

The problem here as I see it is whether society has an obligation to protect those who may not be able to decide what is appropriate to "receive".

An obvious answer is that parents can make that decision for their children. (I know, I know, that may be being eroded, and it's still there.) Out of range of parents who should make that decision?

It's just irritating to me that schools and libraries are required to take the place of parents. If a school decides to monitor drug use, half the parents will say it's not the schools job, and the other half will accuse the schools of not doing it well enough.

I recently read a story about a 15 y/o girl who was not coming home at night. Her parents took after the school for not notifying them the girl was skipping classes!!! Did they think the kid was spending more time as school than home??!! Geez!

If an ethnic group is doing especially poorly, it's the schools fault. If another does well, it's because the parents are instilling values.

I think in the matter of libraries, because they are attractive nuisances in that they have things kids want, communities have an obligation to restrict information the way most parents would, and to make it available to those kids whose parents insist.

And, it's a bind. Goes with a more open society.

Arf