Peter Lewis (via Instapundit) typifies the "tech-savvy" view of the Supreme Court's ruling announced today upholding a federal law that denies federal funds to libraries which fail to protect children from internet porn. I've had personal computers in my home from the the first Commodore 64, but if I found out that my kids were accessing porn at the public library, that'd be the end of my trust in that institution. The same goes for just about everybody else in this county. Our libraries are funded by the county, but if they were allowing access to porn, there would be no internet service at all in them. It's not a free speech issue. It's about the right of parents to protect their children, and the desire of county commissioners to stay in office.

We seem to have the idea that the First Amendment requires that everything be on public display, while the Fourth prohibits any invasion of our privacy. This is why the FBI was prohibited from using the internet to investigate crime by looking at information that is freely available to anyone else. We have become shy exhibitionists, wanting to throw off all restraint, but insisting that no one should look.

Lewis writes:

Sure, some kids will use the Internet to search for porn, just as they'll snoop for dad's collection of Playboys out in the garage. I suspect that if they are blocked on the library computers, they'll simply use someone else's computer. (Or, they'll hack around the software.) Meanwhile, everyone else at the library wanting to use the Internet will be assumed to be a pervert, especially those who ask that the software filters be disabled.

This is to say that because people have a right to view sexually explicit material, the government has to provide it to them. One more reason I'm not a libertarian.