April 3, 1997

Don't regulate the Net
Viewpoint
Daniel Bothum
Columnist

The Supreme Court recently, on March 19 as a matter of fact, reviewed the Telecommunications Decency Act. The justices were trying to find out whether this Act violates the First Amendment. Supporters of the law argue that without it, teens would be able to access adult material. These supporters also say that identification systems should be in place that would verify the age of the user.

Critics say that such identification systems would be too expensive for some people to implement. Using this fact, some groups argue that the law censors the free speech of people who can't afford the systems.

Personally, I feel that either part or all of the Telecommunications Decency Act (TDA) should be abolished. This law is not only poorly designed, but it is also hard to implement. Some of the prejudiced readers out there probably think that I haven't even read the Act. Sorry to disappoint, but I read it on the Internet at www.JournalNow.com.

Like many other legal documents, the TDA is a boring text filled with legal language. It's not exactly Terry McMillan, but I didn't expect it to be. I also didn't expect the law to be incredibly vague either, but it is.

A particularly exemplary passage supports my points: "Whoever...uses an interactive computer service to display in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age...any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image or other communications that, in context, depicts or describes in terms patently offensive...by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs," will be fined, imprisoned or both.

By which community standards is the term "patently offensive" defined? Different communities may define offensive in different ways. San Fernando Valley community standards are certainly different from Statesville's standards.

Also, different people define offensive in different ways. A few people might think that say, a picture of an elephant's penis is not offensive. The rest of us sane people beg to differ.

Another question that comes to mind is: How can this law be enforced? The obvious answer to this question is to add more bureaucracy to the federal government. An agency, council, bureau, or some such organization would be added to police the Internet. Taxpayers will be paying people to browse the Internet.

What's wrong with this solution? It is expensive and futile. Many websites are not under United States jurisdiction, so those websites would remain open to teenagers everywhere.

Also, home pages are relatively easy to establish. All someone needs is the right equipment and software. Due to the ease of creation, many underground web pages would be created every day. Some of these websites would remain on the Net, bypassing the police force. Therefore, enforcing this law will be both expensive and futile.

The Internet, by its very nature, defies regulation. No governmental body can ever hope to control it. It's like trying to confine a velociraptor at Jurassic Park. Eventually, it'll get around the feeble attempts at containment.

Censorship should not be the job of the government, but rather the job of the parents. Blocking software is readily available to download, and (I assume) is easy to use. There is no reason why parents can't under their jurisdiction, control what their children see.

The way I see it, parents (or potential parents) have two solutions to the problem of their kids getting porn. The first solution, which I stated earlier, is to get software like SurfWatch and Cyber Patrol. The second, and better solution is to deny your children an Internet connection. Spend time building up your library, not your phone bill. Let your kids get porn in the same place you got it: Daddy's underwear drawer.

[back]

Lady hoops is...ZZZ
My Turn
Todd Goodman
Columnist

Well, it's that time of the year. Final Four time! So much coverage and hoopla have been geared toward the men, that I completely forgot about the women.

Women play basketball too? Yes, I believe so. It is easy to forget about female hoops during the excitement of March Madness. With all the attention generated by the men, is there any room left for the women? As Dick Vitale would say, "I don't think so, baby!"

Over the weekend I must have polled twenty people on the subject of lady hoops. Guess what? No one cared! I realize I didn't poll an extremely high number, but I did use a wide variety of people. I asked people ranging from die-hard basketball freaks to the quintessential nature lover.

According to Political Science major Joe Plummer, "Men's athletic skills are just so good, it completely overshadows anything women's ball musters."

Some of them had no idea women could even play basketball.

"I think women's basketball is boring." This was a very popular answer to my question.

Answers such as this got me thinking. Hmmm, why do lady basketball teams get such a bad rap? I have come to several conclusions.

First, the action of the game is slow and unimaginative when compared to that of the men. I have seen better games at the Quinn. The thrill is just lacking.

The biggest factor contributing to the lack of interest in the women's game is athleticism. Lady hoopsters are usually fundamentally sound, but who gets off on fundamentally sound? "Thelma Lou really has good free throw form, doesn't she?" Show me a half court alley-oop from Ed Cota to Vince Carter. Now that is exciting.

People like dunks, dunks, and more dunks. I watch Sportscenter to see who got "nasty" on somebody. Watching Shawn Kemp swing from the rim after posterizing someone is what I call fun. Watching the Lady Volunteers run the four corners is not.

I couldn't find much support for lady hoops, which makes me wonder how the Women's National Basketball Association will survive. Where will their fans come from? Are they going to bus in their families in an attempt to fill the stands?

The WNBA kicks off its inaugural season in June. I am just glad these games won't interfere with the real NBA games. Can you imagine NBC interrupting the Bulls-Knicks to go cover the Vancouver Blowdryers overtime victory? I can't either.

There will be about 10 teams, if that many, when the season begins. This will hinder the variety of competition. Viewers will constantly be watching the same teams battling it out, with television time-outs to check makeup.

How will this league generate revenue? WNBA games could not sell out Varsity Gym. Try putting them in the Charlotte Coliseum and it would look like a ghost town.

I am just thinking of the people involved, don't get mad at me. It would be a pity to see the WNBA fall flat on its face, and I am single-handedly trying to prevent that from happening.

I know my attitude seems a little negative when it comes to lady hoops, but I did the research. Can 20 of Appalachian's finest really be wrong?

[back]

Our Opinion

Reasons to love ASU...

• The surrounding flora, fauna and weirdos on Sanford Mall.
• The always hot and fresh cafeteria food.
• The array of chicken entrees at The Food Court, mostly cooked... most of the time.
• The soaking wet lettuce at various salad bars and the entire head of it you get when having a sandwich made.
• The ten-minute walk UPHILL to The Market.
• The oh-so efficient library with the copy machines that only take DIMES.
• The wide variety of parking spaces available when it's legal to park on-campus.
• The one-hour parking spaces outside Founder's Hall.
• The lively traffic on Rivers St. one must dodge when trying to get to the John E. Thomas building.
• The 25 mph speed limit on the well-paved Rivers St.
• The appealing sight of the parking lot created on top of the tennis courts by the entrance to campus across from Rivers St.
• Our new mascot- the construction crane.
• The sound of university vehicles backing up, "Eeeeep! Eeeeep!"
• The sound of the almost silent garbage trucks at 6 am outside your dorm room window.
• Fisher Price green roofs.
• Water fountains that don't work.
• Rankin's interesting floor plan and efficient room marking.
• The scenic flood plain.
• The vomit in residence hall bathrooms on Sunday nights when it's had time to ferment.
• AppalCARTs that are NEVER on time.
• Advisers who have no idea who you are and seem to take leaves of absence when you can't figure out what to take.
• Core curriculum that doesn't have anything to do with your future.
• Computer lab operators that can't fix printers in times of dire need.
• Vending machines that melt your Snickers bar into a pulpy mess.
• The effectiveness of the Vax system and how amazingly speedy and fault proof it is.
• The telephone registration system.
• The possibility of freshmen getting first dibs on dorm rooms.
• Upperclassmen signing up for dorms on the last day of availability.
• The expensive absurdity of the textbook rental service for English, History, Political Science, and most other majors.
• The Student Accounts Office having wacky hours.
• Student involvement.
• The comprehension of opinion and expression.
• Going to get mail and finding only bills and credit card applications.
• The ten minute walk to get cigarettes.
• The wide use of antibiotics to cure anything.
• Did we mention Parking Nazis?
• Our school flower- the cigarette butt.
• Spring Break the first week in MARCH.
• Dealing with the Financial Aid Office, period.
• And last but not least, the lack of crime.

[back]

Letters to the Editor

CBS television coverage good

To the Editor,

I am writing in response to an article on CBS's coverage of the NCAA tournament. The article ran in last week's paper, and was written by Justin Griffin.

His first complaint was the fact that CBS opted to cover the beginning of the Wake Forest game instead of the Chattanooga ending.

Sports enthusiasts want to see the big boys play. Wake Forest is a powerful team. They had been ranked among the elite all year. How many people cared about the insignificant Chattanooga game?

Griffin also was not happy with CBS's choices for commentators. He was especially displeased by the choice of Billy Packer.

Let me say this. Billy Packer is one of the more knowledgeable commentators the game has ever had. So what if he likes his Wake Forest Deacons. Packer did a great job this year and so did CBS.

My last gripe came when Griffin made a false statement concerning Utah's Rick Majerus. Majerus jokingly made fun of the NCAA catering table, not the one of CBS. Get it straight.

Todd Goodman
ASU Box 18232

Summer Reading Committee right on

To the Editor,

Appalachian State's "Summer Reading Committee'' has indeed done a dastardly thing! (The Appalachian, 3/25/97) As an effort to launch students into their various academic orbits, the committee has recommended that freshmen coming in for Summer orientation read (and discuss) one book! Incroyable! One book ! I'm not sure that the committee adequately considered the fact that it might be dangerous for them to read one book! And that they might not like it, and that it might be offensive! In light of these concerns, maybe there should be a list of alternative selections? I've got it! Nine sounds like a real good number. Why don't we get the 2000 incoming freshman together for one hour between ‘'Social Interaction" and "This is Your Library" for an intensive discussion of the "Harmless Nine?" We could have an in-depth discussion of such literary gems as Rodman's memoirs ( I'm told that it's a favorite on campuses) or another stimulating possibility, a soon-to-be published study of Andrew Lloyd Weber's contributions to western civilization, i.e.Les Mis and all that. Only seven more to go, but you get my drift.

I'm particularly concerned that the committee ignored book-readings potential danger to the mental health of our incoming frosh (the image of mortar shells is intentional). As someone is reported to have said, therapy is only appropriate in the cold months. In the heat of summer, with no credit for English 1000, and no grade for ‘'the work,'' and no possible satisfaction from the pleasure in sharing a challenging, intellectual experience. I'm afraid that the whole exercise might indeed be unsettling. Fancy that! Students asked to begin what should be the most fascinating four years of their lives with the ridiculous suggestion that it might be fun to begin that adventure by reading a book. What a novel (sic) idea? But sacrifice "As the World Turns " for a book? Or a summer of fun with friends before college for a book? Or after a hard day at work? Really! A 200 page book in the 90 days of Summer? That's 2.22222 pages a day!!! What right do they have to make such outrageous demands? And why didn't they (the Reading Committee) ask any students to contribute to the discussion? Who do these folks think they are? Educators or something?

James F. Barnes
Professor, Political Science/Criminal Justice

[back]

E-mail The Appalachian Online at theapp@conrad.appstate.edu