At a Town Board meeting this week, Councilwoman Liz Simonson and other town residents questioned whether Wilber, as studio manager of the public access station, should be allowed to determine which films contain potentially offensive material and should air during those hours.

"Our civil liberties are under attack and have been for years and this is just one more (instance)," said resident Gerry Ricci. "Thomas Jefferson said, 'It is far better to have too much liberty than too little.'"

Simonson and some residents in attendance said the public access channel should be run by a separate non-profit organization, not the town.

"The definition of something offensive is very arbitrary," Simonson said. "I don't think the Town Board has thought of all the convolutions that could happen. Each one of us represents a collective or community standard. I can't say I'm going to give up all (decision making) to (Wilber)."

Wilber said he has no interest in censoring any producer's work. If he makes a decision to "safe harbor" a program and others think him "too prudish," he said, they have every right to appeal the decision to the Town Board.

Last week, Wilber said that neither he nor Time Warner Cable has the right to censor any of the material submitted to the public access channel, citing free speech provisions of the First Amendment.

According to Ulster County Senior Assistant District Attorney Mike Miranda, it may not matter who runs the studio, because obscenity is not protected as free speech in New York state or federal law.

Miranda said the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case of Miller vs. California defined obscenity as a work, taken as a whole, which appeals to the prurient interest, depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way and lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Such issues as material on public access channels, Miranda said, are usually determined by a community standard. Woodstock, he said, must decide what its community standard is.

Councilman Brian Shapiro cited the Miller case as a precedent for how the town should determine whether public access programs should be restricted to certain hours.

"I have a six-year-old daughter and this is a very important issue to me," said resident Paul Shultis Jr. "Part of my civil liberties is to protect my daughter and I'm not sure a non-profit organization (will protect my rights). I trust the Town Board will make the right decisions."

The discussion was spurred by complaints from residents about a documentary on AIDS that was broadcast on Channel 23, the public access channel, in the middle of the afternoon. The program contained a scene in which a man living with AIDS describes his first sexual encounter.

He tells in graphic detail what happened and how it felt, and finishes with, "And at that moment it occurred to me that he should have been wearing a condom."

Wilber said the film overall was educational and useful, and that the offending scene was the only part that suggested the film should be restricted to late night viewing. He argues that the issue is largely a "non-problem" and that the town has not dealt with offensive public access material since a producer aired a hard-core pornography film on Christmas morning 15 years ago.

The proposal was tabled until the next Town Board meeting.