The bruhaha over the Kenyon position past, I thought to raise a peripheral
issue.  Someone suggested Dan Herron should have censored the offending
notice.  He said he didn't do that.  Good.
 
On February 8 President Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
which includes--as you know--a section making it illegal to knowingly
transmit indecent material over the Internet so that children may have
access to it.  Then there is some pallative effort in terms of V chips and
what not.  (I believe this piece of legislation is the Exon "Family Decency
Act."  Since when did legislation get all these self-serving and
editorialistic names?)
 
Among my early reactions was, why don't the parents simply prohibit children
from access this offensive material?  Immediately I realized that would not
be possible unless the computer is locked, inaccessable except under
supervision.  Then I thought, what's wrong with that, necessarily?  Some
people consider it good education for children to be taught how to use
rifles, say--for hunting and such--but nobody considers it inappropriate to
keep guns locked up out of the reach of children except when adults are
present.  For Pete's sake, we don't let children *cook* in the kitchen by
themselves.  If we want to analogize to the "Information
Superhighway,"--hey, we don't let children play on superhighways by
themselves--we don't even let them alone at playgrounds.
 
The big disappointment with computers, then, might be that they are in fact
*not* an acceptable babysitter.  They are apparently dangerous
instrumentalities in the hands of children.  If we cannot police the
medium's content without unreasonable intrusion on free speech, then parents
will simply have to police their children's consumption of Internet content.
 
 
I enjoy reading the postings here, and much appreciate the individual
interaction that can stem from notices.  Thanks all!
 
Dan Warner
Western Washington University
Bellingham, WA