Colin Rafferty <craffert@ml.com> writes:
Note that if the library in question were not arm of the State, noone would have any First Amendment claim.
Which is why it is a good thing that Libraries are state funded.
On the contary. when no library was state (meaning, taxpayer) funded, and they were supported by paying users (as was the case in most of the world for most of its history), then multiple libraries would compete for users by providing the best service possible; hence, if one private library chose a bad censorware, its users would switch to another private library. Of course private libraries find it hard to compete with tax-funded "free" ones on price.
It is considered legal and moral for a *private employer* can use censorware to restrict their LAN's access.
It may be legal, but whether it is moral is certainly debatable.
In my opinion, employers like ML needn't use censorware to prevent you from accessing, say, porn sites; as long as it doesn't interfere with your work performance, who cares if you sit in your cubicle and ogle naked women (or men) on a computer paid for by ML, together with its internet connection. But if they choose to do so, and you don't like it, then you can 1) choose to work for someone else, 2) pay $20/mo for your own internet connection; not run to a federal judge whining that your employer violates your 1st amendment rights by not paying for your access to non-work-related pornography.
When the government removes games, pictures, etc. from its PCs it is acting as a responsible efficient employer.
Not necessarily responsible, but it is legal.
What about ML telling its employees not to have games on their PCs? What about ML telling its employees not to have any unlicenced software on their PCs and not to download software from BBS/Internet because it might contain viruses? ML has some very confused people working for it. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps