Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (July 22, 1997)
▼ EDITORIAL EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Sarah Kickler ASSOCIATE EDITORS: Ryan Frank & Carl Yeh NIGHT EDITOR: Sarah Kickler EDITORIAL EDITOR: Mike Schmierbach editorials, letters, commentary and perspective NEWSROOM: (541) 346-5511 DISPLAY ADVERTISING: (541) 346-3712 BUSINESS OFFICE: (541) 346-5512 CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING: (541)346-4343 Parents, not software, should monitor internet use ■ OUR OPINION: Technology is an inappropriate way to clean up the internet { mut” is, by many accounts, an endear ing word. It has a nice, harsh, coarse ■ ^ sound to it, like many words of German ^ origin do. Pornography is nowhere near as a appealing for reporters and headline writ ers. Not only is it shorter, but it doesn’t have all those nasty legal connotations to it. For any number of reasons, “smut” has become one of the new Internet buzzwords. Gone are the media’s joyful exultations about the “Information Superhighway,” wherever that famed stretch of electronic road was leading us. No, the Internet is now the realm of kiddie-pom purveyors. Smut sellers. Thankfully, there is a new knight on a shining software horse riding to our rescue, and the same CHRIS HUTCHINSON/Emerald newspapers and television shows that gushed with joy at the range of information available on the web are oozing at the possibility of censoring it. The Register-Guard is the latest victim of such technological giddiness. On Thursday, the paper ran an Associated Press story under the headline “Industry to offer anti-smut software.” Outright government interference in the form of the Com munications Decency Act didn’t work, but the pri vate sector is all too willing to take up the censor’s shears. According to the story, President Clinton is working with computer industry leaders to make “anti-smut” software widely available. Such soft ware allows users to designate certain topics as for bidden and then quietly severs access to sites that flunk the purity test. Depending on the company, the software works in different ways and exerts varying degrees of control. Some programs rely upon sites to report their content and at the command of the computer user refuse to visit those sites that admit they contain unwanted ideas. What these programs do with unknown sites depends, sometimes the programs limit ac cess to sites known to be “safe.” Other programs work in much the same way that In ” ternet search engines like Alta Vista and WebCrawler function by using key terms to isolate inappropri ate content. Such techniques can lead to humorous results. According to an article in Scientific American, America Online’s ex perimentation with such a device led to the blocking of breast-cancer support groups. The results aren’t always as amusing. The maga zine article notes that one software’s criteria in clude forbidding access to sites that tell people not to buy their product or that use the name of one prominent company critic. Such corporate control is alarming, but it might be a sign of die future. While efforts by parents to play an active roll in their children’s web viewing are admirable, soft ware may not be the wonderful solution to smut the media have made it out to be. Not only are techniques to control content ineffectual and over ly broad, but they present a number of dangers. When software companies are able to determine what is and isn’t naughty, their taste might not al ways be good. Ideas that don’t concur with a cor poration’s ideology may end up mysteriously van ishing from the biggest source of information out there. Even those items many people consider worthy of censorship may not be deserving of removal. Pornography is a touchy issue, but pages contain ing hate speech and inflammatory politics are also on the chopping block. Software that allows par ents, liberal and conservative, to remove from dis cussion ideas they don’t concur with makes it too easy to turn away from crucial social discourse. More alarming is the possibility that, with the ef forts of industry and the White House, software might spread out of the home and into schools and libraries. Just because some parents don’t want their children to be aware of homosexuality does n’t mean everyone should be denied access to pages that might offer them support. Unfortunately, that sort of thing is exactly what might happen if a community’s information re sources accept technological censorship. For li braries with a limited collection of books, the wealth of information on the Net can and should help compensate for inadequacies on the shelf. Instead of welcoming software as a solution to smut, the Guard and other papers should think about what their one-sided stories are advocating. With its prominent coverage of a book on women’s sexual fantasies, the Guard might find it is advo cating a technology that would censor its own newspaper. The concern of parents is understandable. How ever, the solution does not lie in finding a techno logical way to enhance the machines they are us ing as a substitute for parenting. Instead of planting their child in front of the computer and ignoring him or her, parents should make the use of the web a family activity. By helping their children under stand what is good and bad about the ideas on the web, parents will do far more good than any soft ware company can. Of course, if we are forced to engage in construc tive discourse about the images of women, minori ties and government presented on the Internet, we might not get to use words like “smut" nearly as of ten. This editorial represents the opinion of the Emer ald editorial board. Responses maybe sent to ode@oregon. uoregon .edu. LETTERS Media need critiquing I wish to thank you who are the Emerald editorial board for you opin ion of July 15,1997, concerning estab lishment media coverage of the Coun try Fair. It is mostly difficult to discern critiques such as yours amidst the drumbeat of dominate culture, self righteousness and triumphalism and middle-class complacency. Remain vigilant in tearing the veil off mainstream attempts to dictate norms and marginalize/deligitimate those of us who continue to exalt per sonal liberation in the face of oppres sion even 30 years after the ’60s passed on by. Persist in your media critique and also in cultivating your awareness of the authoritarianism that is immanent in contemporary American society. You speak with the voice of wisdom. Fire Horse Monk Eugene Fair coverage I am writing to applaud the Emer ald editorial board for its column of July 15 (’’Media made topless carni val out of fair”). I first attended the Oregon Country Fair in 1974, at the young age of 19, and found it to be a wonderftil celebration of the fact that civilization could exist success fully and joyfully without the need of outside (i.e. Police and govern mental) restrictions. Nobody cared how anyone dressed, either! We were just coming out of the Vietnam War, and the movements toward al ternative lifestyles, that the fair epit omized, were beginning to appear as realizable ideals. Although we knew we hadn’t completely demolished the destruc tive forces of intolerance and greed, we all felt we had made inroads in the cause of freedom. Indeed not too many years later, the possession of cannabis, a harmless plant, was de criminalized in the states of Oregon and Hawaii, thus helping us to feel that political change could proceed in a positive, humane direction. I had come to Oregon originally because I believed that it was more enlightened state than my native Wyoming; multicultural and multi faceted, where no one’s ideas were mocked. Eugene supported with equal tolerance both the Merry Pranksters and Holy Rollers. I stayed here until 1978 attending that little bit of Brigadoon every year, until forced to leave for personal, family reasons, and so until 1995 the ’78 fair had been my last experience. When 1 returned last year, and was able to show a Wyoming friend this great event I was pleased to find it basically unchanged, despite the growth Eugene had suffered in inter vening years. There were the usual complaints, as well as the numerous (as nationally) persons forced into homelessness (due to the unsettling worldwide reestablishment of greed), but on the whole, it seemed that this community’s diversity was given one more year to shine through three generations of believ ers in those Aquarian ideals, that seemed to be coming into their own once again. This year, through overambitious politicians, and their media lackeys, I saw the backlash. We all “obeyed,” with wry smiles, but this gave us now-more-experienced, “hippies” an opportunity to exercise our rights within the politicians’ and media hacks’ playing fields. The petition to recall Mr. Harcel rod received a great boost by his vo cal complaint, and his call for stiff enforcement of an immoral law. I saw also that the OCTA (Oregon Cannabis Tax Act) petition gained new impetus in the face of this con troversy, as well as our Governor’s recent endorsement of the recrimi nalization of marijuana. So all in all, the media event created for the forces of intolerance succumbs to that famous third law (as applied to society) and that the “counter cultur al” reaction was, as usual, far more elegant. Thank you. Michael Hanson English Alt tktiils TO THE IRA CEASEFIRE We’re not par ticularly optimistic about its longevi ty, given the na ture of the conflict | over Northern Ire- j land, but we’re glad that people in the region have decided to stop killing each other over religion and politics, at least for a little while. TQTHEU.S. HOUSEVOTE ON ART In another bril- j liant cost-cutting move, the House voted to eliminate | funding fortheNa- : tional Endowment | for the Arts in its latest budget rather than get rid of a tank or two. The Senate, mean- j while, has pro posed providing a j little over $100 million—still in adequate, but at least they’re being j marginally rational, j Art used to be a centerpiece of pride for commu- \ nities. Now it has been relegated to a target of ridicule for the religious right. TO THE PROPOSED ELIM INATION OF TAX CREDITS FOR GRADUATE STUDENTS Okay, so not every GTF is des tined to be Profes- | sor of the Year, but j they work hard and j deserve the tuition ! waiver. Under pro- • posed budget cuts, however, that waiver would be considered taxable income. At a time when tax breaks for undergraduate j education are be ing proposed, doesn’t it make more sense to con tinue breaks that I allow graduate stu- ! dents to continue their education?
