What to liberals think it MEANS to oppose internet filters?

Raising Kaine had their typical apoplectic fit over the Republicans pointing out the voting record of one of their candidates:

This is utterly despicable ("Down and Dirty Politics: Callers in a recent poll were asked if they knew Englin voted for children to access porn."). Sadly, it's par for the course these days in the "backwards not forwards," "tear people apart rather than bring them together" Republican Party of Virginia.

I would note that Daily Kaine (or is that Raising Kos?) spends most of it's time tearing people apart. I would further note that Lowell actually attacked the entire republican party of virginia for the actions of one push poll -- certainly NOT an accusation meant to "bring people together".

The liberals seemed particularly incensed at the suggestion that Englin voted to allow children to have access to porn, playing off an equally enraged article:

The questions were very biased and provocative," said vanBever, who said that she voted for Englin during his first run in November 2005. "They were so completely loaded that I was left with the impression that they felt I should be afraid of David. Frankly, I felt insulted that they were trying to make me afraid."

...
It implied that his opposition to computer filters in libraries would result in children having access to pornography,

The entire point of putting internet filters in the libraries is to ensure that children, left outside of the control of their parents who have worked so hard to try to make the internet a safe place for their children, won't have that work countermanded by the government paid for by their own hard labors.

If you vote against library internet filters, you are voting to allow children to have free access to anything on the internet, much of which IS porn web sites. I don't know if the problem with liberals is that they spend so much time attacking republicans on the internet that they don't ever explore all the filth, or if they spend so much time viewing it that they simply don't think children should be restricted from it.

But it is so typical of liberals to be upset at a poll that points out a candidate's voting record. For liberals, pointing out their views IS a negative attack -- because so much of what liberals do is negative.

Note, I'm not saying it was Englin's intent to allow kids to access porn. Often liberals have only the best of intentions when they vote to make really bad things happen. I'm sure that Englin would explain how important it is for the "free access to ideas" that the government not be into "censorship". As if the constitution requires the government to take my money and provide porn for free.