EDITOR Erin Gibson OPINION EDITOR Cliff Hicks EDITORIAL BOARD Nancy Christensen Brad Davis Sam McKewon Jeff Randall Bret Schulte r--— Our VIEW Strictly confidential Secret Service agents shouldn’t have to testify Who would have ever thought we’d be asking the Secret Service to testify about the president’s actions? With the Clinton-Lewinsky spectacle continuing ahead with no sign of stopping, the Supreme Court now is hearing a case on whether or not the Secret Service has the privilege to keep private the things they have seen during their time protecting our president. bnould the Secret Service have the kind of lawyer-client privilege shared by attor neys, psychologists and priests? You’d better believe it. When a person goes into a confessional booth and says “Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned,” courts have stood by the deci sion that what was discussed is private information said in confidence. The same goes for what someone confesses to his psychiatrist, or what a client tells his attor ney. Lawyers do not have to testify as to what clients tell them. Otherwise, lawyers wouldn’t be able to do their jobs properly. If clients tell their attorneys they aren’t guilty of one crime, but they are of another, how could lawyers defend them, knowing they could be called to testify against the very person they are defending? The same goes for priests and psychia trists. And the Secret Service. , We place these people in a position of great importance. We trust them. We all know the image - a big burly man in a dark suit with a pair of sunglasses, one hand to his ear, listening to reports of all the other agents. Lawyers protect the rights of the accused. Priests protect the spirits of the faithful. Psychiatrists protect die sanity of the unstable. Secret Service agents protects some thing a little more tangible. They protect the leader of our country. If they are told they have to testify, they won’t be able to do their job properly. Why? Presidents may start ducking Secret Service agents left and right, leaving the president without someone to take care of whatever threats occur. This affair certainly wasn’t the first, and somehow we doubt it will be the last, but at least while these presidents have had their affairs, someone has been protecting them. The Supreme Court should agree that Secret Service agents have to keep their eyes on the president at all times and not worry about when to turn away. The Secret Service isn’t our watchdog for the president. Otherwise, why are we calling it the Secret Service in the first place? Editorial Policy Unsigned editorials are the opinions of the Spring 1998 Daily Nebraskan. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nebraska-Lincoin, its employees, its student body or the , University of Nebraska Board of Regents. A column is solely the opinion of its author. The Board of Regents serves as publisher of the Daily Nebraskan; policy is set by the Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board. The UNL Publications Board, established by the regents, supervises the production of the paper. According to policy set by the regents, responsibility for the editorial content of the newspaper lies solely in the hands of its student employees. Latter Pcilcy The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief letters to the editor and guest columns, but does not guarantee their pubfication. The Daily Nebraskan retains the right to edit or reject any material submitted. Submitted material becomes property of the Daily Nebraskan and cannot be returned. Anonymous submissions will not be published. Those who submit letters must identify themselves by name, year in school, major and/or group affiliation, if any. Submit material to: Daily Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R St. Lincoln, NE. 68588-0448. E-mail: letters@unlinfo.uni.edu. Mook’s VIEW DN LETTERS Game on They say hindsight is 20/20, and I wholeheartedly agree. Last year, when the senate under Curt Ruwe’s adminis tration chose the migration game, many factors came into play. Most of the contributing factors influencing our choice ofOSU over K-State were accu rately listed in your editorial. Sure, the seats weren’t as good as we would have hoped for; but regardless I still think it was one hell of a game to attend. You can’t please 100 percent of the people 100 percent of the time. 1 just want everyone to realize that with every issue, there are going to be people who agree, disagree, and are indifferent. And although the editorial staff at the Daily Nebraskan disagrees with ASUN’spick, many students still agree choosing the OSU game at Arrowhead was a good decision. Additionally, it may not have seemed like the best deci sion to those who went and felt their seats were lacking in quality, but tell that to die approximately 300 students who applied to the lottery, wanted tick ets and didn’t get the chance to see for themselves whether or not ASUN made the right choice. (Sure, they could’ve traveled down to Kansas City, Mo., in hopes of getting a reasonably priced scalped ticket, but who really wants to rely on scalpers?) < Sara Russell senior mathematics ASUN president What a hoot By one estimation, rape occurs in this country at the rate of 78 per hour. That is, one woman is raped every 46 seconds. When this figure becomes obsolete, when rape and sexual assault become as prevalent as cannibalism, then you may convince me to listen to your pretty, little defense of Hooters, Ms. Kuxhausen. Until then, enjoy your chicken wings. Seth Felton sophomore undeclared Who’s going to hoot? M^thanks to Erin Reitz for making everything abundantly clear. First she tells us, “This big, wide, wonderful world that we live in is a pretty sexist place.” She then is thoughtful enough to provide us withaprime example by say ing, “Although I like them, men seem to have an innate need to dominate pretty much everything around them.” Sexism is wrong, whether it’s com ing from a man at Hooters or from a woman in the paper. I’d take Erin^ con cerns about it a lot more seriously if her own biased stereotypes weren’t so well displayed. Brad Pardee library services UNL S. • 1 Let freedom ring In reading your student newspaper; I found an interesting theme spanning a number of the articles and columns which I came across. One of your front page articles mentions the regulation of picketing outside a Presbyterian church - no less the “regulating” of supposed ly “free” expression. “... (I)t is constitu tional because it does not outlaw what protesters’ signs say - only when, where and how they can be displayed.” To me that sounds like a direct viola tion of “free” expression since it is reg ulated so heavily. Are we to regulate “when, where and how” students can assemble peaceably everywhere in America? How about in front of every church? This brings me to the other front-page article about reported party complaints decreasing. In this article, Mr. Funk attests to an “increase in the number of complaints during the last few years” which leads me to believe UNEs regulation of on- or near-cam pus parties has only pushed an existing problem into someone elseh backyard. If students were allowed alcohol in res idence halls, which they will find regardless of any policies, then at least parties could be watched over much more freely and students wouldn’t have to drive off campus, thus increasing the risk of drinking and driving incidents. Yet, as I made my way to your opin ion pages, I found a very interesting »head-to-head pair of columns. I was immediately drawn to the candid nature with which Mr. Cooper l argues for First Amendment rights, I rights which seem to be less than | “free” in Lincoln as I know to be the case here in Massachusetts. Truly, America has lost sight of the pure vision our founding fathers (I guess the term is founding “parents” these days) held fin* us back in the late ► 1770s. What is “free” speech or “free” expression if we sue each other for pay ing simple compliments to a member of die opposite sex or outline, in our “obscure and politically worded” doc uments, the very nature of how we are to go about our “free” expression? Simple. We can’t Either it's “FREE” or it isn’t and sadly I believe, as does Mr. Cooper, that it isn't I notice, as I read his column, a peculiar word denoted as “s***.” Funny, but it’s almost as if you prove his point by this notation and by the very title you have stamped upon the page. Whether in Nebraska, Massachusetts or die Pacific Coast I think we have a responsibility to fight for the basic rights our nation’s founders granted to us - life, liberty and the pursuit ofhappiness. Maybe we at Harvard should look outside of our immediate surroundings for the answer. However, I think you already have it Hopefully, you will choose to listen. Montgomery J. Kessler second year Harvard Law School p C U/ 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 "R" St, Lincoln, ' _ yY fax to (402) 472-1761, or e-mnil