Diverse viewpoints
The Feb. 14 Daily News juxtaposed an assortment of viewpoints in a news article, column and letters about access to information. The front-page described efforts by an Idaho legislative committee “to allow civil penalties for schools or public libraries that permit adolescents younger than 18 access to materials considered obscene or harmful.”
Questions immediately arise: “Considered obscene” by whom? What is “harmful,” and to whom? One of the “best-known phrases in the history of the Supreme Court” about “hard-core pornography” was Justice Potter Stewart’s, “I know it when I see it.”
Two Opinion page letters supporting freedom of information in public school libraries responded to an earlier letter that advocated censorship. Chuck Pezeshki’s column discussed ChatGPT, the artificial intelligence bot unhinging academia because it can research information for lazy students.
Baring library shelves won’t keep curious kids from ferreting out information they seek. Age restrictions don’t work. Older friends educate younger friends.
The 1873 Comstock Law criminalized using the Postal Service to send “obscenity, contraceptives, … personal letters with any sexual content or information … .” That law suppressed literary classics.
As parents, we need to provide enough love and guidance to our kids that they trust and respect our opinions. Most children begin making independent choices sooner than we adults realize, whether it’s a furtive vape or visiting a forbidden website with friends. There is no prearranged time when a youth can say, “I’m an adult,” nor a given point when adults can welcome youth to adulthood. The transitions are gradual.
Building trust and communication is parents’ responsibility, not that of legislators, opinion writers or librarians (who remarkably accommodate their multi-faceted publics). True democracy thrives on exploring diverse viewpoints, including parents willing to reexamine their own beliefs when challenged by maturing children. Strong families are based on such mutual trust and open communication.
Pete Haug
Colfax
Removing the dams
Gregg Servheen’s “We can do this” column with 63 signatories (Daily News,, Feb. 16) says removing the four lower Snake River dams will affect “some” businesses and people” and that impacts will be “local and temporary.” That certainly doesn’t reflect testimony to the contrary published in numerous lengthy articles in the Moscow-Pullman Daily News and many other prominent news sources.
And the “63 professional resource scientists and managers with more than 2,000 years of combined experience” signing his letter have presented nothing but assertions that removing the dams would result in increased salmon runs. That’s not even good theory.
Robert Callihan
Potlatch
