<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".

True, and just to clarify my own position, I am opposed to any legislation that would prevent someone from putting something ON the web. Should someone post something that falls into the category of "Fire in a crowded theater" (A possible example: publishing someone's address and encouraging someone to firebomb the house) it can be handled after the fact under existing laws.

...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!



Again, true, but at least some of this syndrome has to be blamed on leftist agendas which try to put the state education system above the wishes of the parents. Or hadn't you noticed that the term "parental notification" was a leftist cuss word?

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.

Again, I agree (wow! Hat Trick!). I think my previously-mentioned solution of just dividing areas into "kid-safe" and "supervised-kids-only" would be easiest. On the other hand, I have never seen a library yet with an "adults only" section of shelves either, at least that I was aware of. Have you ever been in a library where a kid couldn't just pluck "Peyton Place" off the shelf, sit down and read it?