Some say censorship is needed in school and public libraries to prevent harm from coming to children.

This bothers me on so many levels.

Who gets to choose what is harmful?

Are all children identical? Or do they vary in maturity, interest, and sophistication?

Are things that are prurient for a homosexual minor also prurient for a straight minor? For an Orthodox Jew the same as for a California surfer dude? (Ask me about the Orthodox Dead Heads some time.)

PG-13 today is comparable to R movie ratings in the early 1960s. How do you keep your censorship flexible?

Pictures are blocked if "taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". Who makes that call? What does "serious" mean? Not funny? Not entertaining?

The Internet is unimaginably huge, unlike your local library. Nobody can possibly achieve this kind of absolutely perfect interception. So what are the acceptable levels of failure? What are the test cases?

Are children, who are able to process more information than adults, really unable to cope with nudity?

When we censor children, are we teaching them to accept censorship? Are we raising better citizens? Are we teaching them to distrust the government?

What harm actually befalls a child who sees a picture of poo?

That's insulting.

To children.

As though we don't show them war, violence, corruption, calamity, and seduction. On the evening news.

While the lives of tens of millions of American children are shrouded in poverty, hunger, violence, and illness.

There is something patently offensive in thinking children cannot process the world, warts and all.

And that censorship provides more safety than health coverage, safe housing, and three nutritious meals every day.

Please support your local librarians and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

A well written FAQ on CIPA implementation.  

Anyone want to create a minimal filtering system?
Just enough to comply?