Reading the New York Times editorial page is becoming indistinguishable from reading the pages of The Nation or Mother Jones or The American Prospect.

Only in the land of the loony left does "freedom of expression" mean that citizens have the right to enjoy pornography in their public library.

The Times complains that Internet filters sometimes block sites that are not pornographic. True, but it is a small percentage, and the filter can always be temporarily turned off or simply reconfigured to allow access to a particular site.

However, the most interesting part of the Times' argument against the Supreme Court's ruling is that librarian supervision is an acceptable substitute for the filtering:

They (libraries) cannot maintain adults-only terminals without filters, or rely on alternative methods, such as monitoring by librarians, to keep children from looking at inappropriate Web sites.

When was the last time one of the Times' editorial writers visited an underfunded public library on a weekend, or after school on a weekend? Do they seriously believe that librarians have the time to monitor say a half-dozen computers among all of their other duties?

The Supreme Court's decision, in this case, was the right one. One I'm sure the vast majority of the American people agree with. It just shows you how far the Times has gone in recent years.