R.R.

As much as parents don't want their children to have access to your site, they feel comfortable in abdicating their responsibilities as parents by letting somebody else choose what their children should or should not see!

Parents, and not some official appointed guardian, need to teach children values. . . guardians come in only when parents are incapable of handling their own affairs and their childrens' upbringing.

I've informed my children that there are certain rooms that they are not allowed in. . . in some cases, I've restricted the access myself. Freedom means protecting your own family from things and not letting someone else choose for you!

M.P.

I understand and completely agree with your decision to restrict access to your site. It makes good sense to protect yourself from any possible legal problems. You are also protecting minors from themselves and their natural curiosity. I applaud your efforts and will remain an appreciative customer. Thank you.

M.H.

I have read the oral argument before the Supreme Court and I can guarantee you, as an attorney for more than 15 years, that the Supreme Court will not rule against any of the Internet business interests as it is more free speech than even newspapers or magazines as it is not laying out for minors to see, and to restrict Internet access for millions just to stop one minor would be against against the premise of the Constitution. If you doubt me you can read the oral argument at Websplash. The justices treated the opposing attorney as fresh out of law school, but treated the attorney for free Internet access with great respect.

S.C.

The only censor that will ever work is a concerned parent. One who has the balls (or whatever) to tell the kid no! It's about time parents and not the courts - Supreme or otherwise - do the parenting. Yes I am a parent that "censors" what my kids watch on television. I figured if I didn't want the reponsibility of being a parent, I should just go castrate myself.

S.S.

Dear Virginia,

I think the government should stay out of cyber space! If they really wish to save the children of this country they should balance the budget and reduce the whopping Federal Deficit that hangs like the Sword of Damocles over us all. But instead they'll waste hundreds of millions of taxpayers dollars to fight a war that can't be won, like Vietnam, the war on Drugs, or the war on smokers.

A.W.

I really must say that your idea is not only unique but very "customer" focused, while finding a way to comply with the so-called moral narrow-minded, you kept it essentially cost free to your customers maybe other will follow suit. Keep it up you are great.

F.K.

I feel that a computer is like a gun or a car. Adults buy them and it's their responsibility to keep them away from minors. I don't see suits against GM or Ford because a careless parent left their car keys out.

An adult bought the computer and paid for a phone hookup. Last time I checked, MA Bell won't hook up phones for ten year-olds.

H.D.

As I view this drama unfolding concerning the Communincations Decency Act, I feel that reason and logic have vanished from the arguments and everyone is using emotion to argue their points. Reasonably, what is the real issue here? Although it would be desirable to not have minors view pornography, I believe the 'harm' is greatly exaggerted. There are hundreds of things (Draino, glue, drugs, drag racing) that are truely harmful to minors. Viewing pornography is not one of them. What are people afraid will happen if either a child or teenager sees two peop;e engaged in passionate sex? Mostly all 'adult' videos are erotic, not violent. They do not depict cruelty toward women (or men.) What are we all afraid of? Children can easily access pro-tobacco, pro-drug web sites on the net. Also, children and teens can access all sorts of sick and distorted political topics (such as communism and fascism.) Are erotic words and pictures more dangerous than that?

I understand you have to do what you must do, but people, let's get some reason and logic back into the discussion. Sure, we should try to keep kids and other minors (I don't think a 17 year-old is much different than an 18 year-old, however) out of adult web sites. But if they do happen to get in, is it the end of the world? Will they be permanently damaged? Write your Congress people and try to reason with them (decidely a long shot) about the relative danger. We should be concentrating on other things, rather than smut, that are truly damaging to kids!!!

F.K.

I won't mind at all. You've provided good & honest service and that's why I keep coming back for more. Jumping through a few hoops won't keep me away!

R.E.

I think that the site being for members only is fine with me. That's about the best that could be done under the current circumstances!

Thanks for a good job done, on a good site! Keep up the good work.

J.C.

I have no problem with your plans for the site. I really enjoy visiting, and will certainly purchase some films due to the extensive library you have — and the vast info on each film.

I fully support measures taken to help prevent children being exposed to adult-oriented sites — parents cannot monitor their kids on the web 100% of the time.

P.T.

Personally I think it's a great idea. My first impressions of your web-site have been very positive. I particularly like the detail you take to illustrate each product with a brief synopsis and a rating rather than simply labelling films into vague categories like Lesbian/Gay, etc. Your whole site looks professionally done.

R.P.

Concerning a closed site. I am in favor. I personally would like to see graphic pictures from the movies I may purchase and read more graphic reviews.

You policy for allowing access is a good one. I don't buy many movies but enough to not have to pay an access fee. If I don't buy a movie for a year and then want access, I can pay the fee and apply it to my next order. It is a good plan.

A.R.

Well, I'm sorry you feel the need to make your web site a closed site, but I can understand the concerns of those who don't want their children looking at an "adult" site — and it's not easy for parents to monitor their kids' activity as some knee-jerk civil libertarians think. All politics is compromise, and I think yours reflects a good one.

And I wouldn't pre-judge the Supreme Court's reaction yet — they've been known to thwack so-called conservatives when they feel they've transgressed the Constitution.

By the way, I've enjoyed your service, especially the way you've make the older "Golden Age" films available. And I've been very pleased at Excalibur's willingness to exchange defective tapes.

I'll be looking forward to the expanded catalog!

M.J.

I think it is a good idea, and I like the way the membership fee is being handled. Frankly if I had to pay a fee, I probably wouldn't visit your site any more. Paying fees is too much of a hassle, and is too much like an investment. I also think that the exchange program is an excellent idea, although I haven't had the opportunity to try it yet.

H.O.

BTW you people have produced what in my opinion is the classiest adult site on the net. Too bad about having to go private but if it keeps the kids out then it's worth it. Keep up the good work.

B.K.

I have been a customer for a few years now and am sorry a change maybe needed in the way I access your site. I do agree that children should ne kept from viewing adult material, but it should be the responsibility of the parents. Of course, some parents aren't intelligent enough to come in out of the rain much less control their kids. So, for their sake, this may be necessary.

I do like your service and the quality of your tapes. Once in a while I get a tape with bad spots in them but you always replace them, no questions. I did receive my account number today and I thank you for that. I hope I don't need it but am glad I have it in hand. Good luck in your endeavor.

A.O.

Supreme Court and other lofty bodies such as that aside, I enjoy coming to your site and having purchased from you folks in the past suspect there won't be a problem in the future. Hate to think there were so many people worried about your site, but we can't let the little ones sneak in, can we? So, do what you must, but somehow let us in on the site however possible. Thanks for your work in the past and look forward to see you in the future.

B.B.

I have a great deal of difficulty in expressing my anger and the feelings of helplessness that seem to become ever more common when the institutions that we are supposed to rely on to maintain order and protect our borders somehow decide to protect us from ourselves and enforce some "generic" and obviously Christian-based moral code. I believe that we, as adults, have the right to view or participate in whatever form of entertainment or expression we personally find interesting, as long as we are not harming anybody. I do not believe that the religious convictions of a loud and politically active group should set the standards for the rest of us.

On the issue of children viewing pornography on the net: these children have parents or guardians who should be keeping track of where their children are going on the net, not the Supreme Court. I am offended that any official would try to diminish my rights because parents either will not do their job and raise their children. This whole concept of "get rid of anything that might harm the children" is BULLS**T! It's about time that people were forced to take the responsibility for their own actions. You have children, you raise them, you watch them, and you teach them. The idea that my life must change because you think that I should also be watching out for your children is also BULLS**T! I hope you notice how good I am being about not offending children and not using profanity. I wouldn't want anybody who showed this on the net to get into any trouble with the Supreme Court.

D.M.

Thank you Virginia for your candor and honesty. But don't throw out the Supreme Court just yet. . . today's news, as deliberations begin, note that perhaps the Court is leaning in the direction we want them to be in. Personally, I believe it should be open, and the parents' responsibility to keep kids out. That is a naive statement that has little basis in reality, so we are faced with the issues you have so eloquently pointed out. But I'm holding out for the Supreme Court. . . I think they will do us proud.

S.C.

My feelings are (IMHO) a closed site would be more appropriate. Minors do lie. As for the government, they should not get involved. Parents need to babysit their children - not the government. I have a child and I don't want her seeing this stuff. That's my responsibility. So I prefer the slight inconvenience of a closed site.

C.D.B.

Yes, the courts suck. However, your proposition for handling the situation is an excellent one. Most sites resort to membership fees only. You have reorganized the benefit of return business with the offer of membership after initial sale, as well as the price reduction for membership dues. Not only do I think that is a proper way for you to handle the situation, I hope other sites will follow. Thanks for using your brain, too bad the lawyers don't.

J.D.

Hi Virginia,

Right on, you do what you can and we love you for it!

P.P.

You need to keep this site open. Fight the courts on the grounds of free speech. Any and all sites that shut down due to government pressure are not worth keeping up in any form. If the government came up and said you could not sell your product, would you then shut down Excalibur Films al together without a fight? All adult entertainers and the people who supply adult entertainment need to band together and fight this. After all, didn't Larry Flynt win a few freedom of speech cases for his magazine? SAME THING!! DIFFERENT MEDIA!!

E.O.

It's for the best. . . I think the Internet is becoming so large that this membership thing is necessary. It keeps things more organized. The good thing is that anyone who is a member of your web site will feel more loyal to it! Your site is honestly the most mature and "high class" site I've ever seen. Very, very professional. Good Work!

Ian

I think closing your site is a very responsible thing to do; however, please don't become like those other "low quality" sites that advertise with all those bad pictures and stupid porn jargon. You're the only site that has class. Don't forget that. You've somehow been able to actually sell pornography at a very self-respecting level. That's great.

B.J.F.

I've been a loyal customer for seventeen years, and I'm glad to see your presence on the net. As for your plans for a closed site, I'm all for it. I think the way you're handling it would serve as a good model for other commercial distributors in the same situation.

Anonymous

The best adult site ever (even though it is soft.) I can't buy because I live in England, but your database is superb for choosing satellite programs to watch. It is also an excellent study in the history of porn. Keep it up, I have no objection to paying such a reasonable price as $19.95 per year.

M.P.P.

I have rather mixed feelings on the subject. . . while I understand why you are doing what you are doing I wish that more people would be willing to stand up to censorship and the dangers it poses to everyone. . . not just the adult entertainment industry.

I DO believe that minors should be restricted from viewing such material. . . however, that is the responsibility of the parent of guardian. We should not allow parents to take a lazy attitude and let other people raise their children. But I do not believe that a simple fee would keep minors from accessing the site if they felt the content was worth the price. I just recently turned 21 as did my fiancé and we have been using these types of sites since we were 19. I don't believe the restricted age should be 21 - after all, an 18 year-old can fight and die for their country, can't they?

Prosumer

I think you should form a legal defense fund and tell 'em to "shove it!" We're behind you totally if you decide to stay an "open site" and stand up for free speech. It's not just the right thing to do, but it also is the smart thing to do. Larry Flynt's profits grew enormously after his fight for his First Amendment rights!

J.H.

While I don't think it's necessary for the Supreme Court to make a ruling on this matter, I do believe that an effort should be made to provide a site such as yours to individuals who are of age and who are serious about purchasing your product. I applaud your decision to be responsible and not responsive to government.

Sean

Freedom. It really is a misunderstood word. Many think it is their right to live in a perfect, sterile world of their own design. This is not what freedom is. Freedom is the right for people to live how they desire, despite what others may think. Freedom means having to live with people who may do, say, or think things that you do not agree with. As Voltaire said in the 1700's, "I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." It's sad that you have to close your site to "members" only because people are unable to take responsibility for themselves and their children. This is a truly a step backwards in civilization, and a sad commentary on America in general.

J.N.

You are probably wise to establish Excalibur Films as a closed site because legal harassment of free sites is common and annoying to the publisher. However, I think the Supreme Court may surprise you on their ruling. They are conservative, sure, but their conservatism tends to take the form of maintaining precedence and steering clear of restrictions upon the language on the Constitution. What they won't do is declare a right inherent (such as the right of privacy) where it is not specifically stated. Therefore, you may see the Court overturn Roe v. Wade, since they can not find any right to privacy specifically stated in the Constitution. Bet they will not overturn previous rulings protecting free speech. However, that still wouldn't prevent other forms of harassment from the FCC, your ISP, or others that would make a free site more trouble than it is worth.

S.T.

I think it's a great idea to close the site and the way you are doing it is proper. As a frequent customer I applaud your decision to include membership with a purchase. I'm also looking forward to the expanded gallery. While I don't think you need actual hard-core shots, high quality explicit photos of the stars would be terrific. Very few sites offer the same quality photos you provide, and none match you database and selection.

M.V.

It is the parents' responsibility to control what their children see and hear, not yours or mine. Instead of making people more responsible for themselves, the government makes new laws to force their opinion of what you should be allowed to see and hear on you. In the near future, we may not have to take responsibility for our actions, as they will all be dictated to us by the government - making the government responsible for ALL of our actions. Mechanized, sterilized, DULL.

S.B.

Although I have never been for anything that limits the freedom to print or freedom of speech, a closed web site makes a lot of sense. Anyone of legal age would not have a problem with the small fee that would be charged especially since it could be applied toward the purchase of your products, and it would keep a lot of under-aged web users from getting into sites that they have no business being in.

A.B.

I don't think it is necessary to go further than you already do to see what you have for sale. I also think that if the Supreme Court is sticking their nose into this it is because of the political garbage and not because they can do anything about it in the long run. Sex has been around since the apple and it will still be here after the Supreme Court is forgotten. I do agree that you can't stop everyone, but the people that should be taking responsibility for their actions - and their kids - are not. And thus we all suffer.

M.N.M.

I support your planned closed web site 100%. I hate that it's necessary, but I believe you're doing the right thing for your protection. Keep up your forthrightness.

D.R.

I've enjoyed the good value you have provided me in the past. I don't want that to change, so if you have to charge an initial fee to keep kids from places they shouldn't be, so be it.

M.D.T.

If you must have a "members only" site, the way you're doing it is the proper way. . . by not charging the people (such as myself) who buy your movies constantly. The way new purchasers are brought into your site is great. I always thought your site was the best on the web for adults, and you handled this minor setback exxxquisitely.

B.H.

Why is it that the U.S. Government keeps trying to take on the responsibilities of a parent? You would think they have enough to handle in cleaning up the corruption in their own ranks and solving the national debt.

Regardless, the solution you have decided upon is one of the best I have seen, though admittedly I do not spend a lot of time surfing the web.

Thanks for the opportunity to voice my opinion and for a site where quality products may be obtained.

R.F.

I applaud your efforts to keep the site running. What a shame a few narrow-minded bureaucrats can cause so many problems for me as a consumer and you in providing a source of entertainment for us to enjoy. I look forward to my access number and support the blue ribbon campaign.

R.N.

Technology is dominated by two types of people:

1. Those who manage what they do not understand, and
2. Those who understand what they do not manage!!

M.J.I.

I am strongly opposed to state regulation of adult activities. I believe it is a parent's obligation to educate and monitor their children NOT the state's obligation to censor everyone in the absence of parental guidance. I agree with the concerns stated on Excalibur's web site and applaud the responsible role Excalibur appears to be taking (although I am sorry that any such concern is even needed).

HOWEVER, the one comment I take exception to is: "in the best of all worlds there would be no lawyers." I hope that what you really meant was, "in the best of all worlds, there would be need of lawyers."

Soldiers don't cause wars and lawyers don't restrict civil liberties, but politicians do BOTH. Sure, grunt lawyers are fighting ON BOTH SIDES of civil liberty issues, but the legislators (who we often discover are the LEAST moral people in our society and the biggest hypocrites) are the ones constantly eroding away our rights as adults.

The fact is, if it weren't for lawyers fighting for civil liberties on the side of the adults in this country, the politicians long ago would have legislated far more restrictive laws than exist today!

Anyway, yeah, I'm a lawyer and my wife is a lawyer and we BOTH are willing grunts who would fight to the death against government's attempt to further legislate morality. I hope you might change the sentence in your text to recognize that those lawyers who DO OPPOSE government controls and to reflect the true cause of our shrinking rights as adults: self-righteous, self-appointed morality police legislators.

R.O.G.

While it is a shame that it is necessary to "close" the site, it does give you all an opportunity to put up some more risqué pics as well as give you more of a sounding board for your views on current trends as they effect your business.

The powers that be realize that you - the webmasters - can't truly be responsible for the deviousness of minors, but you have to be realistic. The regulators can't and won't interfere with the ever-so-lucrative drug trade, but by golly they can intercede with naked people and sex. Sex is so taboo that it is easier to rain on its parade than to go out on a limb and try to keep our law enforcement agencies on the up-and-up so that shipment of 22 tons of pure uncut cocaine won't reach our shores. In election years and the moments in-between it is far, far easier to close down an adult book store than a crack house.

My point (and I do have one) is that anything that supports or profits off of things of an adult nature is automatically a target and an easy one at that. While you won't find a person out on the corner selling adult video tapes, you will certainly find a crack dealer (even in beautiful Columbus, Ohio). Porn customers GO TO the book stores, they look on the net for the sites. . . I have yet to see an adult link come solicit my business. But America is very uptight when it comes to sex and nudity. Never mind that teenage pregnancy is out of control and all the other associated rhetoric, porn is, has been, and will always be an easy target for lawmakers. If they do "solve" the porn problem, what will they solve next? Drugs? I think not.

W.H.

Yes, in the best world of worlds there would be no lawyers. Unfortunately, I happen to be one, but not in your country. Here in Austria the web is uncontrolled so far, which has led to some problems with web sites showing pictures of minors related to sex and abuse. The normal porn stuff is free to be displayed, at least almost.

K.W.

Virginia,

Go ahead and close the site to minors by charging the annual fee.

But please do NOT add a bunch of irrelevant graphics to attract downloaders, and clog up your system for your movie buyers.

YES, go ahead and add more explicit videocover pictures, and maybe more explicit photos of the stars in their galleries. BUT don't get carried away with adding more and more pictures. Tens of thousands of such sites litter the Web now. Keep your principle activity selling movies. Please.

A.H.

I recently read your note about your web-site becoming a closed site. Personally, I don't have a problem with that, even if the pictures you show stay the same. In my opinion, it is even more attractive when you don't show it all on your site, because then it makes you really want to see the movie. Originally I'm from Germany, so it makes me smile a little that the U.S. Supreme Court is so concerned about your site. I really think you have bigger problems in this country, like young people getting shot by each other. But maybe I'm only too used to the fact that sexuality is handled more liberally in Europe. I will still use your site whether or not it's closed because I like the site and your movies.

R.S.

Sounds like a good idea, sooner the better.

R.H.

Big Brother is hard to battle at times, I say close the site as proposed and do business.

K.C.

Your pessimism may be premature. Playboy, Wired, and the ACLU have all stated that their chances are good for a strike down, somewhere around a 6-3 decision. Remember, the three judge panel in Philadelphia included two judges who were George Bush appointees, and Playboy stated that they believe that the decision as explained by the judges is so definite, that a reversal by the Supreme Court will be difficult to justify. That's not to say that there is no chance of betrayal, but we do have the facts on our side, and the Supreme Court does not have to kowtow to public opinion in their decisions. Plus, I have heard that they have a fairly good record on free speech cases.

T.B.

I think it's a good idea. A lot of reasons come to mind but the most important one is to keep Excalibur Films free from liable, if a minor or John Q public gets to the site and has his or her sensibilities offended. You have to CYA (cover your ass). Thanks for the chance to express myself.

M.H.

I think you should be indemnified from entrance by minors who click on the "I agree" button. Freedom of expression is guaranteed in the Constitution and I hope you prevail.

J.S.

I agree with you about not wanting to restrict your web site, especially when they have software that blocks minors from seeing or accessing adult web sites. The only thing that I can offer you is to write a letter to Congress, which will have zero impact unless you can get about 200,000 other people to write letters also. For each letter that an elected official gets, they treat it as if it came from about 100-500 of their "voters."

B.W.

There's NO WAY the CDA can pass Constitutional muster. Too many cases stand in the way - not the least of which is Cohen v. California - as do the 1st and 14th Amendments.

If you HAVE to institute charges to prevent the site from shutting down, though, I like the insightful way you'll be doing it. Yours is a site on which goods are purchased, and exists for that purpose. "Refund on first order" will also prevent "looky-loos" from taking up bandwidth.

Go for it if you have to, say I, and don't if you DON'T have to. That's about it for this man's opinion.

"Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." -- Abraham Lincoln, December 1840.

C.H.

This is the World Wide Web! It's not owned or managed by Americans and certainly not the rotten U.S. courts! If Washington, D.C. says "no porn" I hope the Danish load the net with porn then sit back and laugh at the U.S.A.

Ras

The solution to the problem you have stated is exactly how you proposed it. I have known it was coming and I am surprised that you went so long before succumbing to the pressures of our government. I will be ordering and glad to be a member, as long as you keep the same prices.

J.F.

Close the site. It may be a minor pain in the ass, but maybe it'll take a little wind out of the American Ayatollahs.

Shawn

It is obvious that you have given a lot of thought about whether or not to close your site. I think your approach is the most logical and fair. I am sure most of your customers/fans would agree that it will be even better then, considering that you will be less restricted. I am willing to bet that most of your fans are LOYAL customers, not only due to your tremendous selection, your extremely well thought out web site, and your approach to running a business, but also due to your caring and prideful heart. I am very much looking forward to being one of your loyal customers/friends. Please keep up the good and sincere work.

R.M.

Well Virginia, fair is fair and, as always, your team has come up with a reasonable solution to the dilemma of adult verification. Perhaps you might also consider allowing access to all the suckers (like me) who, new to the web, made the mistake of signing up with Adult Check, Adult View, Adult Verification and the never-ending string of promises these services purport to offer. Your site would actually lend substance to these mobsters, perhaps even shame them, since they would be forced to actually give you something for the money. Looking forward to my next order (the check is on the way.) Hope it's a different pose of you than the first one (the free picture clinched the order.) Much love and adoration, your fan. . .

D.G.

It sounds like you are doing you best to make your site accessible to adults while keeping children off. The free membership with the first order is a good idea. But remember this: Don't Ever Change! You have the best selection, best prices, and a simple, well thought out web site. Keep up the great service and you will soon have no competition.

Coyotelvr

Unfortunately, I must agree with you. If you feel that is what it is going to take, I do not think that you will lose your customer base while you reduce the risk of minors entering the web site. Please keep us posted on any other changes and keep up the good work.

S.C.

Hi Virginia, I think the Supreme Court really stinks!! I agree that minors shouldn't be able to access adult material, but I'll tell ya, the laws are getting so tough that it's making it very hard for adults to access this stuff! I think your site is still the best I've seen even though, believe me, I surf a lot! I'm glad that you said that people who purchased movies from you in the last 12 months automatically become members, because I just received my order yesterday and everything was just as you promised: good quality video (I can't stand it when I order videos and they send EP recordings - the quality sucks!) And you sent EXACTLY what I ordered (another thing I hate: when you order material and they ship you a bunch of R-rated garbage!) . . . like I said you have given me quality products and quality service - two things I highly regard. Now you have a customer for life!

N.S.

I think what you're proposing is a responsible and positive step which should not inconvenience legitimate users, will benefit your paid customers, and will help all of us interested in continued access to adult materials on the Internet by imposing appropriate restrictions.

M.T.

It's a good solution to an unfortunate problem. I order from your company on a regular basis, so the membership fee wouldn't be a problem for me. In fact, I can't imagine why anybody who doesn't order from you would want to be a member. As you stated, there's nothing really titillating about your site. It's just a great place where people who want their adult entertainment at a great price can browse without being glared at by a creepy store manager. Either way, keep your business going. I'm not going back to pay VCA and other like-minded companies $39.95 and up for a tape.

H.M.

This site is by far and away the best of its kind. I recently placed an order and was completely satisfied and will certainly place more in the months to come. I will fully cooperate in any measures you deem necessary to avoid legal problems. Thanks for a truly awesome array of information, unbeatable prices, and prompt shipments. If you think a fee is needed, no problem. I have been repeatedly burned by pay-per-view sites that offer nothing even remotely near to what you do. If I want to see porn, I don't need a website - I watch videos.

R.T.

I have purchased one movie from your website and have been very pleased with the quality of the merchandise. Now about the membership plan: I think it is a superb idea and back you 100%. I would also be honored to be a charter member in this fine club or institution.

J.L.

I strongly feel that all adult sites should be closed sites to prevent minors from gaining illegal entry. However, there should be a small sample section (text only) to describe the site and what it offers. Furthermore, I think that the government is getting too "personal" about what the public should or should not see. I think that if a person feels that some web sites are too adult in nature or too graphic for children, it should be up to parents to keep their children from viewing them. I don't think the government should decide what the adult public can or can not view.