Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (April 10, 1997)
T EDITORIAL EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Steven Asbury MANAGING EDITOR: Thom Schoenbom NIGHT EDITOR: Ryan Frank EDITORIAL EDITORS: Ashley Bach & Brian Diamond ■■ £..V-y. ^ ■■ ' ■■ : editorials, letters, commentary and perspective '• •• / • ' mmwm® sa & ass ' = m NEWSROOM: S (541)346-5511 ■ DISPLAY ADVERTISING: ■ (541)346-3712 •= BUSINESS OFFICE: 5 (541) 346-5512 * CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING: U (541)346-4343 SwSBSSW <? i *55 ' < 4 Sts® < % v\ ' ' ''' '4 f gg$ , ,V g * Banned in the USA' ■ OUR OPINION: The proposal to put a federal ban on advertising distilled beverages both violates freedom of speech and fails to deal with the more influential beer and wine advertisements cc L iquor has no business with kids.” While few would dis agree with this statement that President Clinton made last week, many would disagree with the means by which the Presi dent hopes to take to achieve this goal. In order to ensure that young people are protected from the dangers of alcohol, Clinton is planning to enact a federal ban on hard alcohol companies air ing television ads. For 50 years, distillers of hard alcohol imposed a self-regulated ban on television ..iJXXACiii— i n ns ns ter the alcoholic bev erage most abused by youth — beer. Beer ad vertisements flood the airways every day and probably have more in fluence on young peo ple than hard alcohol I ads ever will. After all, I most people don’t start / off drinking straight vod / ka. They start with “soft I er” alcoholic beverages like beer and wine. Alcohol is alcohol. Whether it comes in the form of a malt or distilled beverages, its effect on the body is the same. So whv ban commercials, dui recently, aner some dis tillers began airing commercials, the in dustry voted to lift the ban. The proposal for a federal ban on hard alcohol raises several problems. First, there is the issue of First Amendment rights and what power the government should have in limiting what can be ad vertised. Second is the apparent hypocrisy behind banning hard alcohol advertisements while continuing to allow beer and wine companies to spend mil lions every year on television spots. The right to free speech is one of the fundamental liberties we, as Americans, value. The First Amendment was created to ensure that all people, no matter how unpopular their message, should be al lowed to voice their views. Popular opin ions, after all, don’t need to be protected by the Constitution. For better or worse, hard alcohol com panies create a product that many people enjoy using. While the government has every right to try and educate people on the dangers of alcohol, they do not have the right to censor those who wish to promote it. If consumers want to buy hard alcohol products, distillers have the right to get in formation out about their product. Of course they already are doing that through magazine ads, billboards, T-shirts and oth er advertisement avenues. Creating televi sion ads would only add to the ad cam paigns already being run. Of course the biggest problem with ban ning hard alcohol advertisements for the sake of protecting children from alcohol is that it would do nothing to limit the amount of beer and wine ads aired on tele vision. If Clinton is really concerned with pro tecting youth from alcohol, why not go af one form of advertising while placing no regulations on the other? While the government shouldn’t place an all-out ban on hard alcohol products, it would be wise, due to the nature of the product, to place regulations on advertise ments. Allowing ads to air only at night when most kids are sleeping or placing warnings and disclaimers on advertise ments are two ways the government can protect young people without violating the First Amendment. However, these restrictions, if enacted, should be universal for all alcoholic bev erages. That includes beer and wine, which are just as harmful to young peo ple. If Clinton isn’t willing to regulate beer advertisements, he has no right to try and regulate hard alcohol ads. After all, all alcohol is essentially equal. This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald editorial board. BACKGROUND ■ In November of j 1996, distillers voted to lift a 50 year, self-imposed ban on any radio or television adver tisements. The de cision was made after Seagram's, a producer of hard alcohol, began air ing advertisements in Texas. Since the announced deci sion, the Federal Communications Commission has remained dead locked over whether or not to launch an official inquiry. LETTERS Open ASUO I thank the Emerald for reporting on the EMU Board meeting that allocated $50,000 for the proposed amphitheater, but it seems to me that it would be more in line with the interests of students in general if someone either from the ASUO or the Emerald could manage to publicize important steps being taken by the Executive to spend our money. There is a pattern of behavior here, folks. We’ve got ASUO Vice President Glen Ban field admitting that he decided to just not be around Suite 4 after the basketball seat-de nial incident, and now, a flat-out denial of student input in a process creeping forward inexorably toward wasting $300,000 to pat ASUO and its friends in the administration on the back. President Matt Scotten and Glen Banfield have managed to work with supporters to gather more money for their pet project without getting any substantial input from students. Let’s see how long it takes them to say that the idea was a product of a commit tee, rather than their own. The average student does not have the time or the energy to play detective in the ASUO office on a daily basis to find out what the hell is going on in there. A little more consideration and a little more forth rightness with actions that are less than popular, if the Executive really believes what it’s doing is right, is in order. Selena Brewington Computer Science Select quality It seems to me that the quality of my pro fessors affects me much more than the qual ity of the University basketball coach. So why did we pay Jerry Green $250,000 when the average teaching faculty salary is some thing like $40,000? Derek Schutt Geology Footnotes perception I’d like to set the record straight by saying that Footnotes does not support discrimina tion of any kind, political or otherwise, on this campus. Footnotes is run by students, for the benefit of all students. The whole Jenna Wasson subscription in cident is regrettable, only because it has served to mask the real intention of many EMU Board members — that of booting Footnotes from the EMU. The political games continue, as the reason Footnotes Board members were not present at the EMU Board meeting on Wednesday was be cause board members did not find out about it until the day of the meeting. As an organization, we want only to be treated fairly by the EMU and be allowed adequate space to serve the academic needs of the university. On a personal note, I find it somewhat ironic that the EMU Board can give away $50,000 of student money for a concrete courtyard, but can’t bring them selves to give even third-rate treatment to a non-profit, student-run and academically focused campus organization. Devon London Footnotes Board Earth story Passing by a copy of “OSPIRG Impact” in the Honors College, I was struck by a head line: “Students organize for the earth’s sake.” Does anyone ever stop to think about these things before they print them? OS PIRG's statement doesn’t make any sense. What does it mean to act "for the sake of the earth?” Will the Earth notice? Does it care? The Earth is a rock, made of molten nickel, hurtling through space. If your ac tions are performed in the name of a rock, then you’re an idiot in the most literal sense. You’re the picture of the insane man on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to your pleas. This kind of thing makes me wonder whether we’ve ever moved past tribal ani mism at all. Do we still worship the objects around us, investing them with spiritual characteristics and magical properties? In terms of religion, has our society come full circle? It makes far more sense to organize for our sake, as conscious, sentient beings aware of our actions and capable of re sponse, than to live our lives in relation to the imagined needs or desires of the rock upon which we happen to live. Modern pantheism is rife with contradic tions and difficulties; it’s completely irra tional, meets no objective criteria and is un suited for a supposedly educated population. Given this, and the tendency of the University community to disregard or ganized religion for its supposed deficien cies, one wonders whether the student pop ulation ever really thinks at all. Colby Phillips Journalism
