Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
PO. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online Edition:
www.dailyemerald.com
Editor in Chief:
Jessica Blanchard
Managing Editor:
Jeremy Lang
Editorial Editor:
Julie Lauderbaugh
Assistant Editorial Editor:
Jacquelyn Lewis
Monday, April 22,2002
Editorial
Ashcroft needs
to let Oregon
voters speak
for themselves
Federal District Judge Robert Jones used
common sense and ruled against the
federal movement to make Oregon’s
Death with Dignity law illegal. With this rul
ing, we hope U.S. Attorney General John
Ashcroft will back off the will of Oregon vot
ers for good and stop imposing his brand of
morality on our state.
Ashcroft has been out to revoke Oregon’s
law since he came into office and challenged
it in November 2001, citing he would prose
cute physicians prescribing lethal doses of
drugs because they were violating the Con
trolled Substances Act. But Oregonians have
accepted assisted suicide as a human right.
We’ve passed the law twice already — once
in 1994, and again in 1997 — this should be
more than enough evidence for Ashcroft that
Oregon wants to keep assisted suicide legal.
Former Attorney General Janet Reno de
fended Oregon’s law in 1998, stating that the
Controlled Substances Act did not apply to
the legislation. We hope Ashcroft will come
to his senses and realize prescribing lethal
doses of medication for terminally ill pa
tients is a legitimate medical purpose, as
Reno did four years ago.
Despite how Ashcroft may feel about the
ethics of assisted suicide, history shows that
Oregonians are using the option. About 70
terminally ill patients have ended their lives
under the law since its inception and pre
scription abuse by shady doctors has not
been an issue.
Ashcroft should stay true to his Republi
can ideals and stop stepping on states’ rights.
The federal government does not need to
stick its nose into sovereignty of individual
states because it has a moral qualm with its
legislation. We hope Judge Jones’ ruling will
deter Ashcroft from meddling with the will
of Oregon voters in the future.
Let us rest in peace.
Editorial Policy
letters@dailyemerald.com. Letters to the editor
and guest commentaries are encouraged.
Letters are limited to 250 words and guest
commentaries to 550 words. Please include
contact information. The Emerald reserves the
right to edit for space, grammar and style.
Editorial Board Members
Jessica Blanchard
editor in chief
Jeremy Lang
managing editor
Julie Lauderbaugh
editorial editor
Jacquelyn Lewis
assistant editorial editor
Jerad Nicholson
community representative
community representative
Peter Hoekadav
newsroom representative
The new faces of ‘KIDDIE PORN"
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court
gave child pornographers the
green light — as long as their sub
jects aren’t “real.” The court struck down
a federal law that banned computer-gen
erated representations of children engag
ing in sexual activity.
While the intent behind the court’s ac
tions is honorable, this is a misguided and
idiotic attempt to support free speech.
The Supreme Court did away with four
provisions of the Child Pornography Pre
vention Act, imple
mented in 1996 to
ban child pornogra
phy on the Internet.
The question on
many minds is why
the Supreme Court
would strike down a
law that actually pro
tects children.
The court majority
decided that “virtual”
child pornography
“creates no victims
by its production,”
since it depicts com
puter-generated or
manipulated photo
graphic images, and not actual children.
From a narrow perspective, this
seems to be true. Of course, no “real”
victims are created by the actual pro
duction of this type of pornography.
But the second a pedophile sees the im
ages, children everywhere are victim
ized. By allowing any kind of child
pornography, we allow an environment
that fosters child predators.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy ex
plained the majority opinion with this:
“Our society, like other cultures, has em
pathy and enduring fascination with the
lives and destinies of the young.”
“Both themes — teenage sexual ac
tivity and the sexual abuse of children
— have inspired countless literary
works,” Kennedy said, including
“Romeo and Juliet.”
I find this defense disgusting. Since
when did the sexual abuse of children
inspire anything but future therapy bills?
And yes, “Romeo and Juliet” was in
spired by a pair of teenage lovers, but not
by adults watching them have sex and
becoming aroused by it. I must have
missed the “porno” version of Shake
speare’s masterpiece.
The court also mentioned movies like
“American Beauty” and “Traffic,” saying it
Peter Utsey Emerald
0“ 0-^-O"0“O
feared the provisions would prevent film
makers from creating films depicting mi
nors involved in sexual activity. However,
these provisions have been in place since
1996, and both movies were made after that
year. The law hasn’t had much of an effect
on the nonpomographic film industry.
Kennedy’s representation of the court’s
reasoning seems eerily reminiscent of what
U.S. News & World Report columnist John
Leo calls “apologists for pedophilia,” or
those who argue that child sexual abuse is
n’t always negative. The Rind Study,
which appeared in the Psychological Bul
letin in 1998, even demanded that the term
“child sexual abuse” be replaced with less
“judgmental” terms, such as “intergenera
tional intimacy.”
According to Leo, the Rind Study and
its supporters have allowed pedophilia
advocates to advance in society. Famous
advocate Tom O’Carroll’s pedophilia
book is actually on a Cambridge Univer
sity course list.
Of course, the Supreme Court had
nothing to do with die Rind Study, and
its decision centers around the produc
tion of child pornography, and not the
actual molestation of children. However,
the court’s changes to the Child Pornog
raphy Prevention Act, coupled with sen
timents like those expressed in the Rind
Study, create a scary, volatile environ
ment, teetering on the edge of toleration
for child pornography and sexual abuse.
This is unacceptable. Pornography
should involve consenting adults only. Un
like grown-ups, children have no real say
over whether they want themselves depict
ed in pornography—actual or virtual.
It’s encouraging that not all members
of the Supreme Court supported the de
cision. Chief Justice William H. Rehn
quist and Justice Antonin Scalia dissent
ed on the entire decision, admitting that
computer-generated child pornography
is simply “high-tech kiddie pom.”
However, die majority concluded that
“the mere tendency of speech to encour
age unlawful acts is not a sufficient rea
son for banning it. ”
In most cases, I would agree. But when
children are endangered, directly or indi
rectly, that’s a “sufficient reason” in itself.
E-mail assistant editorial editor Jacquelyn Lewis
at jacquelynlewis@dailyemerald.com. Her opinions
do not necessarily reflect those of the Emerald.
Poll Results:
Every week, the Emerald prints the results of our online poil
and the poll question for next week. The poll can be
accessed from the main page of our Web site.
www.dailyemerald.com. We encourage you to send us
feedback about the poil questions and results.
This week’s poll question: Should the University schedule
athletic games with teams that have American Indian
mascots?
Yes—69 votes or 61A percent
No—27 votes or237 percent
Don’t Gare—16 votes or 13.2 percent
Don’t know—2 votes or 1.8 percent
Next week's poil question: What do you think about the
controversy over the Abercrombie & Fitch T-shirts?
The choices:
■ Mot offensive, but T-shirts should remain in stores
■ Offensive, T-shi rts should be pul ted
■ Don’t know
■ Don’t care
Letter to the editor
Don’t persecute
others’ viewpoints
Nazis, the Klan and others
... deserve no First Amendment
protection that we rightfully give
to more constructive speech,”
wrote Pat Payne in the April 16
Emerald (“Absurdity about the ‘n’
word”). Apparently Mr. Payne
thinks that some speech is so of
fensive that it should not be legal.
And while the speech of neo
Nazis and the KKK might be ex
tremely distasteful, a free society
must defend its right to say it.
Once we begin picking and choos
ing who deserves the right to
speak their mind, we begin head
ing down the slippery slope to
ward totalitarianism.
If we say neo-Nazis don’t de
serve First Amendment protec
tion, then what about anarchists?
Socialists? Environmentalists? It is
not our job, nor should it be, to de
termine the social acceptability of
someone’s viewpoint. Many great
scientists, theologians and innova
tors have been burned at the stake
because their viewpoints were
deemed “unacceptable.” It is criti
cal to an enlightened society that
everyone be exposed to a wide
range of new ideas and opinions,
so as to accept the most rational,
and reject the most irrational.
Many great ideas in history
have come from unlikely or mi
nority sources. Galileo was im
prisoned for offending the domi
nant sensibilities of his time, even
though he was right. I am not sug
gesting that neo-Nazis are right,
but no one deserves to be perse
cuted for their views. It is essen
tial, in an enlightened society,
that all voices feel free to speak
their minds without fear.
Chuck Slothower
freshman
pre-journalism