EDITOR
Doug Kouma
OPINION
EDITOR
Anthony Nguyen
EDITORIAL
BOARD
Paula Lavigne
Joshua Gillin
Jessica Kennedy
Jeff Randall
Erin Gibson
Our
VIEW
Hot seat
Supreme Court should
protect free speech
The Supreme Court heard arguments
Tuesday for and against the Communications
Decency Act.
The justices should have immediately
declared the dangerous law unconstitutional
and moved on to other matters.
Instead, a decision on the matter is ex
pected in July. Those who value free speech
will be sweating until then.
The Communications Decency Act (a law
since its passage last year) could more accu
rately be called the Hogtie Free Speech on
the Internet Act.
The law, an inexplicably misguided piece
of legislation introduced by Nebraska’s
former Sen. Jim Exon, makes it a crime to
make “indecent” or “patently offensive”
words or pictures available online where they
can be found by children. Violators could get
up to two years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
Now, keeping nude pictures away from
children is certainly a laudable goal. (After
all, if kids get their fill of nudity on the ‘net,
they won’t get it from prime time television
—and all those advertisements will have been
for naught)
But the problem with this law, as with all
other attempts at censorship, is that “inde
cent” and “patently offensive” are either
loosely defined or not defined at all.
To be sure, Sen. Exon probably defined
“indecent” to include pictures of people hav
ing sexual relations with kitchen appliances.
That’s certainly nothing children need to see
to become well-rounded adults.
But who is to say the definition won’t
stretch to the point where criticism of, say,
the government is considered “indecent” or
“patently offensive?”
No one, mat s wno.
The mere possibility of restricting free
speech on the Internet is a slap in the face to
those who have been empowered by the voice
the global computer network has given them.
Before the Internet, getting one’s opin
ions out to a laige audience was possible only
through the mass media. The only people who
truly had free speech were the ones who
bought ink by the barrel and paper by the ton.
But now anyone with access to just about
any kind ofcomputer can publish his or her
views on the World Wide Web, with a poten
tial audience of millions. No massive invest
ment in printing presses, radio transmitters
or television cameras is necessary.
The law that could take that all away is
blocked right now by a Philadelphia court
order. But the Supreme Court could remove
that block and declare the law constitutional.
Yes, that may happen. The Associated
Press has reported interviews with court em
ployees who say the Internet remains a mys
tery for all nine justices.
One of our most precious civil rights rests
in the hands of nine people who know little or
nothing about the technology they are to rule
on.
it’s getting hot in here.
Editorial Policy
Unsigned editorials are the opinions of die
Fall 1996 Daily Nebraskan. They do not nec
essarily reflect die views of die University
ofNebraska-Lincoln, its employees, its stu
dent body or the University of Nebraska
Board of Regents. A column is soley die
opinion of its author. The Board of Regents
serves as publisher of the Daily Nebraskan;
policy is set by the Daily NebraskanEdito
rial Board. The UNL Publications Board, es
tablished by the regents, supervises die pro
duction of the newspaper. According to
policy set by the regents, responsibility for
the editorial content of the newspaper lies
solely in the hands of its student employees.
Letter Policy
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief let
ters to the editor and guest columns, but
does not guarantee their publication. The
Daily Nebraskan retains Ihe right to edit
or iqect any material submitted. Submit
ted material becomes the property of the
Daily Nebraskan and cannot be returned.
Anonymous submissions will not be
published. Those who submit letteis
must identify themselves by name, year
in school, major and/or group affilia
tion, if any. Submit material to: Daily Ne
braskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R St.
Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448. E-mail:
letten@unlinfo.unl.edu.
Mehs ling’s
VIEW
1«Tm\
Nba
&\1
DN
LETTERS
Defending the Fort
High school students may be “on
the right track,” but John Fulwider t
is off-track and out of control (DN,
Wednesday)! I salute high school
students who are attempting to make
a difference and change things they
feel are wrong (as long as it’s done
within the rules and laws which
currently exist).
However, I do expect a little
more, in terms of researching the
facts and providing correct informa
tion, from a college junior news
editorial major. First of all, please
don’t presume to speak for those of
us in the Armed Forces, “comprised
of honorable women and men ...
who are dishonored by the don’t ask,
don’t tell policy ... ”
You, John, have not earned the
right to speak on behalf of those who
have chosen to serve their country.
Do you want to ban recruiters from
private colleges and universities who
offer scholarships, but many of
whom “discriminate” (by your
definition) through their affiliation
with religious groups, etc?
You highlight the statistical
increase in the number of homo
sexuals discharged since the “don’t
ask, don’t tell” policy began. If you
did your research you’d find that the
increase has very little to do with the
actual policy or its enforcement, and
more to do with the nationwide
increase in the number of people
willingly “coming out of the closet.”
Most of those discharged from
the military chose to “come out” and
risk the consequences. Yes, these
“850 voluntarily took an oath” and
that oath is to obey orders and
defend the laws of our country. They
knew the rules, regulations and laws
and chose to take the oath.
If they now choose to violate the
oath, laws, rules and/or regulations,
they must also be willing to pay the
consequence. Unfortunately, that is
one concept that we in America fail
to teach our children—there are
consequences for our actions—
good or bad! Don’t discriminate
against the military because, we
defend the laws of our land.
You are also wrong in criticizing
the LPS officials. Visiting with
recruiters is voluntary. The career
classes you mention_are NOT taught
/
Matt Haney/DN
by recruiters. In feet, they are
currently taught by Army ROTC
faculty from the Department of
Military Science at this university.
I’d be happy to show you the
block of instruction that is taught, at
no time is a “recruiting pitch” part of
the instruction. In fact, if a student
wanted to join the military right
there on the spot, they couldn’t —
because we’re not recruiters!
Lastly, be careful what you
recommend to these young men and
women without first researching your
facts. Many of the colleges and high
schools who have chosen to “throw
the military off campus” have had a
rude awakening when federal
funding is threatened to be cut off
from the school because to do such a
thing violates current law! If you
don’t like the laws work to change
them — but don’t target the military.
We don’t make the laws established
,by the Constitution — we are sworn
to defend them!!
Ricardo S. Barrera
lieutenant colonel, U.S. Army
military science
FirstAgainst the Wall
In response to J.J. Harder’s
column “No more Babel, please”
(DN, Wednesday), I’ll try not to
focus cm the fact that your (and my)
native language is a mere combina
♦.
tion and distortion of innumerable
languages whose “standards” you
find inferior to our Own.
I’ll try to overlook the titanic
degree of egocentric ignorance
indicated by your anger at the
omnipresence of Spanish in parts of
the United States where indeed, that
language has been the primary one
for more than 400 years.
I’ll throttle a guffaw when
visualizing your difficulty with the
vocabulary of the McDonald’s menu
(cuarta libra con queso?); already a
worldwide symbol of cultural
imperialism.
I’ll not hypothesize about how
you would feel if a foreigner,
brought here illegally by a well
known American corporation to
work long, hard hours for a pittance,
were to misunderstand a road sign
and injure or kill someone you love.
I’ll even understate my personal
need, as a temporary but docu
mented Nebraskan, to welcome and
embrace not only the languages of
other cultures, but their arts,
traditions and foods just to give
myself a break from Midwestern
culture—which for me — is often
so much tasteless, warmed-over
gruel eaten in front of the test
pattern on black-and-white TV.
Rather, I’ll just attack the
endless, whining, conservative
refrain that road signs and publica
tions in “Spanish, French, German
and Sri Lankan” are a waste of our
sacred tax dollars.
Did it ever occur to you that
millions of these immigrants (legal
‘or not), naturalized citizens and
non-English-speaking natives are
taxpayers too?
Do they not also have the right to
learn, vote, read, write and navigate
the byway using their native
language as you do?
I DO think so. The day is
coming, Mr. Harder (racist language
initiatives notwithstanding), when
our fellow immigrant citizens will
take what is deservedly theirs by
sheer demographic force. Wake up
and smell the cafe.
D. Brian Mann
graduate student
modern languages
