🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Jun8.032151.18841@eff.org> kadie@eff.org
 (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>So the second question is how far can the freedom to read (or view) 
>be suppressed in the name of protecting youth?

I don't see how this has a hell of a lot to do with the situation.
It's interesting reading (I mostly approve of the ACLU, although
they've got a few blind spots), but I think your analogy is a bit
strained.  I'm also not sure why you've split this discussion up, but
I 'll go along with it.

>"...A Georgia display law was invalidated because it prevented the
>perusal by and limited the sale of constitutionally protected
>material to adults..."

Without the details of the law under question, I can't see any
relevance.  The same applies to the other cases cited.  We don't
prevent anyone from acquiring images, passing them around, or
privately displaying them.  Judging from the amount of stuff on our
disks, we're *certainly* not "preventing the perusal" of the material.

>Do resident advisors police dorm rooms, making sure
>that no 17 year olds are allowed to R-rated movies on cable?

Cable?  You must have a different kind of dorm.  I don't recall that
option when I lived there.  Not having been an RA, I can't say exactly
what they're required to watch out for, but I do recall one who nearly
had a nervous breakdown keeping an eye on the fifteen-year-old on her
floor.


				"Give him some orange juice and a
				 sugar cookie, ... maybe a tetanus
				 shot.  He'll be fine."
--
J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)