Free Speech Held Hostage Since when did political conservatives become the arbiters of the First Amendment? On June 17th, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a measure requiring libraries and schools to use blocking or filtering technology on Internet-linked computers. Institutions refusing to do so will forfeit the discounts of 20 to 90 percent they now receive on telecommunications services and Internet access. And locally, on June 23rd, the Shelby County Commission recommended withholding from the Memphis & Shelby County Public Library system $4 million in funding -- one-quarter of the operating budget -- until library officials present a plan for keeping Internet pornography away from kids. Library director Judith Drescher says there's already a system in place, one that relies on careful monitoring by the library staff, and it works pretty well. Installing filters on Internet computers to protect minors would also prevent adults from reading or seeing constitutionally protected materials (for example, software that blocks nudity would keep all patrons from seeing many great works of art). Compromise proposals to use filters on just half the computer terminals would prove too restrictive for small library branches, which have only a few computers to begin with. While not even an ardent advocate of free speech would claim that it's a good idea to let children view pornography, the use of filtering software is not the answer. It's fine for parents to decide what their children are allowed to see at home, but when it comes to installing blocking technology on computers used by the general public, that puts politicians in a parental role, giving them the power to impose their own notion of morality on the rest of us. America's public libraries are among the purest embodiments of an ideal set forth in the U.S. Constitution, which clearly states: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." It's odd that many of the same politicians who so rabidly defend the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms" have no qualms about altering the First Amendment's purpose to suit their personal tastes. Mayor for the Millennium As the century draws to a close, few would argue that the 1991 mayoral election -- the one which saw current incumbent W.W. Herenton unseat Dick Hackett by a mere 141 votes -- was a pivotal event in this city's recent history. But as we go forward into the next century, the forthcoming contest to determine who will be the first Memphis mayor of the new millennium promises to be just as significant. If nothing else, the October 7th election will be a breakthrough race, in that it will mark the first occasion in which two formidable African-American candidates -- Herenton and city councilman Joe Ford -- square off for the city's highest office. There are those who complain that the pace of racial progress has been slow in Memphis; this election certainly shows that, at least as far as mayoral politics are concerned, it's a whole new ballgame. Not that Ford and Herenton are the only candidates in the field; as of this writing, there are seven declared contenders, and another half-dozen waiting in the wings. With so many candidates to choose from, and no runoff provision, we will likely elect our new mayor with the lowest percentage of the total vote in our history. Given that fact, every single vote is important. Each of us has an obligation to pay attention as the race develops, and to cast our ballot as intelligently and responsibly as possible. Our destiny is, this time around, truly in our own hands.