From: "Strong, Lee" <StrongL at MTMC.ARMY.MIL>
To: "'WSFA members'" <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Burning at the Stake
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 07:57:37 -0400
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

	Unless, of course, those children stumble onto the Shaver Mystery or
disagree with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
or don't find _M*A*S*H_ entertaining... in which case they're obviously
inferior and unworthy beings who must be denounced vehemently on chat lists
and suffer other forms of social disapproval.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted White [mailto:twhite8 at cox.net]
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 6:17 PM
To: WSFA members
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Burning at the Stake (Not!)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Strong, Lee" <StrongL at MTMC.ARMY.MIL>
To: "'WSFA members'" <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 3:34 PM
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Burning at the Stake (Not!)

> Well, I generally view parents being protective of their children
> including their children's reading as a positive exercise of parental
> responsibility.  However, others see a reasonable protective concern as a
> wholesale assault on the First Amendment, and I believe that we can
address
> reasonable concerns without labeling those people 'loons.'

People who are "protective" of their child's reading are usually those who
wish to instill a narrow worldview in that child.  They are innately
suspicious of books -- of all sorts.   They believe in sheltering children
from life.  Every child should rebell against such parents by reading as
widely and voraciously as he or she can.

--Ted White