▼ 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?