Opinion
Cliff
Hicks
Strike one
Supreme Court decision just
first battle in war over Internet
Our frontier is still free. Yee-ha!
On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Reno vs. ACLU
in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union that the
Communications Decency Act is indeed unconstitutional, thus
relieving every person who has ever done anything at all ques
tionable on the Internet.
The CDA, for those of you who are unfamiliar with it, stated
that anyone who was responsible for making anything “indecent”
or “obscene” available to minors on the Internet was in violation
ot the law. According to those responsible for its creation, the goal
of the CDA was to prevent child pornography and the “continuing
widespread of smut before our children’s very eyes.”
What is was, in effect, was a gag order for the whole Internet.
Saying that anyone who puts up something indecent on the
Internet where a child can read it is kind of like saying if you say
anytning indecent in public, you are in violation ot the law.
The Internet is something larger than most people understand.
Oh, sure, sure, people think that the Internet runs across the
world. But in its own way, the Internet is a world unto itself. There
is no race in the Internet, or not one that can be seen anyway.
People aren’t judged by anything more than their words, grammar
and ideas. A utopia in some ways.
But, like all good things, the Internet has a dark side. There are
those who linger around with pictures of children doing despica
ble things, mutilated carcasses and more. Imagine it as the most
dangerous part of New York you can find.
Still, 95 percent of the people who use the Internet never enter
that world. It’s not something that interests them nor will they
stumble upon it by accident.
What the people up on the Hill don’t seem to understand is
that you can’t find these kind of things without substantial work.
It’s not like when a child turns on a computer, immediately the
most vile and lewd thing feasible pops up before them. There are
kids who search for them; but that’s the children, not the Internet.
lvidiiy wdy?> iu censor me iniernei exisi: ^yuersmer, rser
Nanny. Parent Watch and dozens more. Some screen for images,
most block out anything controversial. But in the end, this is a par
ent’s decision - they put it on their computer and it affects their
household no more.
What the government was attempting to do would have been
infinitely worse. Conversations about the use of sex in George
Orwell’s “1984” would have been banned. Information regarding
AIDS would have been banned. People’s stories of wars, if they
were too graphic, would have been banned.
Luckily, the Supreme Court looked at the CDA and said that it
will not do. Sometimes the system does come through. In the end
though, this is only the first step in a long battle. Congress already
has several “Son of CDA” laws planned and hopefully each and
every one of them will be struck down.
The First Amendment guarantees me my freedom of speech.
Each of you is guaranteed the same. But if something even
remotely like the CDA passes, even this column itself might be
considered “indecent” by someone somewhere and I could be
arrested for it.
Let me ask you this - how much is your freedom worth to
you? Is it worth being a little uncomfortable? Is it worth having to
watch over your kids a little more each day? Or would you rather
have the government tell you what’s acceptable and what isn’t?
Me, I say the government.... Well, let’s just say that they can
leave my freedom alone. How about you?
Do you want to be free?
The Internet is still free and I hope it stays that way. There will
be other frontiers and other exploration. There were be other
forums and other places to talk. But how many of them will be
safe? My life, my business. Isn’t that the way it should be?
Hicks is a junior news-editorial and English major and a
Daily Nebraskan columnist.
Haney’s
View
m:
Matt Haney/DN
Jessica
Kennedy
Through the roof
For many, rising tuition rates could put college out of reach
Cheers.
It’s another payday for the university
and another beer for students to cry in.
In case you missed it, the regents
raised tuition 4.5 percent. That’s about
three dollars more per credit hour. That’s
on top of a 1.5 percent increase in fees
for technology services.
That 4.5 percent increase is more
than inflation is rising, more than the
three percent pay increase university
staff got this year and a hell of a lot more
than any increase most students will see
in their paychecks in the next 12 months.
I know that I probably won’t see a three
percent pay increase. Heck, I’ve made
the same at the DN for three years run
ning.
Let’s face it: The regents, with good
intentions, have once again taken a
mighty step on the road to making higher
education an elitist opportunity.
I’m glad I’m graduating in
December. I honestly don’t think my
educational funding source could handle
another of semester of high costs. And
I’m lucky — mom and dad have been
bankrolling my tuition and fee costs for
the last four years. I don’t know how
people work full-time and full-time
school, along with paying for tuition,
books, rent and living costs.
There is an indirect correlation; as
the costs rise, the enrollment at our
“flagship” campus will lower. Students
will face the tough dilemma involved in
choosing between a program of choice
and a school of reasonable costs.
I am fully aware that the increase is
to finance building repairs.
But they are the repairs of years of
neglect. Years of administrations with
agendas more “noble” than the physical
maintenance of the university. And our
generation has to pay for it; paying for
buildings we’ll never use in their
renewed splendor.
But there is a bigger problem
involved in this tuition increase.
When the regents met to decide the
fate of thousands of student budgets,
there was one very bright ray of light.
Student body president, Curt Ruwe,
voted against the tuition increase. He is
the first ASUN president in modem
memory that voted against a unanimous
regent board.
Our president actually voted in-line
with student opinion. What a wonderful
ly novel idea.
Here’s the kicker: people were still
upset with Ruwe’s vote. Not the students
— I’m sure most weren’t even aware of
the nay vote. Administrators and fellow
regents were actually upset with Ruwe’s.
It would appear they were unprepared to
deal with dissension.
So much for democracy in the uni
versity’s administration.
I applaud Ruwe’s stand and find it
«
Lets face it: The
regents, with good
intentions, have once
again taken a mighty
step on the road to
making higher
education an elitist
opportunity.”
unfortunate that he received any flack
for his truthful and admirable stand.
Though the regents are noble in their
reasoning, the increase hits student
unfairly, with little regard for the reali
ties in which students live.
As much as I appreciate many of the
amenities of the university, I urge the
regents to find the waste and repetition
in the system and eliminate it.
Those savings should save students
— and their education dreams — for
classes to come.
Kennedy is a senior broadcasting
and advertising major and a Daily
Nebraskan columnist.
