There is no "civil right" to view porn in a public venue. This is the same argument I hear from the antis.
I agree. "There is no 'civil right' to view porn in a public venue"
is the same argument as one might hear from the antis, who might say "There is no 'civil right' to carry a handgun in a public venue".
Very good point.
The difference is that guns are Constitutionally protected.
I agree that guns are Constitutionally protected.
I doubt my local library has the Kama Sutra and if does, it should be pulled;
Hrm ... I see. Any other religous or pseudo-religious works that might be considered pornographic that need to be pulled? Song of Solomon, anyone?
Art?
Again, we're getting down to the "I know it when I see it" bit that doesn't work when you're censoring stuff on a governmental scale.
2) children need to know about books like that in order to go exploring for them, most kids don't, but everyone knows about the Internet;
Pesky computerized library catalog! Nowadays, even if Little Johnny doesn't understand Dewey's delightful decimal system, he can still type "sex" into a (non-internet enabled) computer terminal and see exactly where to find books on the subject.
3) an adult can peruse the Kama Sutra in a cubbyhole in the library and no one is the wiser, the Internet is there for all to see.
So the obvious solution is "there oughta be a law!"? *shrug* We think differently.
How about to get access to a private computer terminal (say, one in a cubbyhole) you have to be 18+, otherwise you use an open terminal and sign an agreement to avoid such sites?
There, now that wasn't so hard, was it?
The problem with your argument is that it points out the hypocrisy of the libertarian philosophy - "Whatever standards I have should be perfectly legal and fine, but if a community wants to set some standards for themselves, that's unacceptable",
What now?
We're not talking about a community setting standards for themselves - or there would be no debate. We're talking about a legislative effort to set standards for and to control others. If you can't control yourself on the internet, then buy a filter for your home computer and avoid terminals without one. Make sense?
or "Good for me, but not for thee."
This doesn't even relate to what you were attempting to paraphrase.
Your "hypocritical libertarian" bit would be better paraphrased as "Good for me. Go do as ye would do. Nunnamybizness."
As I said before, if you want filters on a private library's computer, or your personal systems at home ... enjoy! If you want to pull the Kama Sutra, or Song of Solomon, or pictures of Michelangelo's
David from a private collection ... that's the business of the owner.
Waitone had a very good point when he said:
I don't think taxpayers should be paying for public libraries. Far too may ideological, religious, civil, legal and moral fights are breaking out.
You don't want to give money to a library that contains anything you find objectionable, Joe Patriot don't want to give money to a library that doesn't carry a copy of the Constitution, Alamander Marx doesn't want to give money to a library that contains anything but the works of Lenin.
Maybe we should look into private libraries than?
jsalcedo
If all gun related sites had were relegated to .gun they would be easier to find.
But I really don't think this is the way to go because then every single facet of the internet would have their own extension and information would be impossible to find.
And where would you find information on shooting in the nude? So very confusing.
- in front of children in the library - on my dime - will actually have to ask the librarian to suspend the filter in order to be able to access porn in public.
:banghead: 
I would ask them to set up an 'opt out' policy. Basically, they should set things up so staff can (and will) disable filtering to terminals on request. 