OPINIONS THE UNIVERSITY STAR
quoteof the day
”
“The fact that they looked it up in a book just shows that they don’t get the idea of truthiness at all. You don’t look up truthiness in a book, you look it up in your gut.”
Stephen Colbert, host of The Colbert Report, on the Associated Press’ failure to credit him with originating the word “truthiness.” The AP originally referenced the Oxford English Dictionary as defining the term in the 1800s. Source: Associated Press
Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - Page C1
Opinions Contact — Joe Ruiz, staropinion@txstate.edu
THE MAIN POINT
Mike Wood/Star illustration
Congress’ actions concerning new bill fit ‘annoying’ definition “Whoever … utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet … without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person … who receives the communications … shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.” -H.R. 3402, Sec. 113 On Jan. 5, President George W. Bush signed into law a bill titled the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005. While preventing violence against women is no doubt a worthy effort and certainly funding the Department of Justice is necessary, one piece of the legislation is especially troubling. The above statement is troubling because of the use of the word “annoy” without much of a description of what’s actually considered annoying as well as requiring people to disclose their real identities. How many of us have posted on a message board about our favorite artist or sports team? How many of us have written that we’re not too fond of a professor on Facebook or MySpace? Well, that’s only one part of the equation. Those mediums don’t allow for much anonymity. Are those now considered an annoyance to law enforcement officials? To random staff members of The University Star; television commercials, Madonna and people who can’t tell the difference between “to,” “two,” and “too” are annoying, but is it actually necessary to regulate and file criminal charges to those who “annoy” us online or in person? Now while we’re fairly certain people won’t face legal action for typing “your favorite band sucks” to somebody who might be offended or annoyed; the signing of this bill into law calls into question the possible ramifications of testing the law and its usage by prosecutors. One of the welcoming qualities of the Internet is the ability for people to remain relatively anonymous in posting their thoughts. By making those postings subject to criminal prosecution, those who post anonymously face the very real threat of being labeled a criminal for their actions in the virtual world. Congress should immediately review the law and either remove it or further define the terminology used in the law to distinguish between those who make real threats or harassment versus those who choose to be annoying solely for the sake of annoyance.
Americans should reevaluate stance on liberties As Americans 11, the USA Paentrenched in pop triot Act has culture and entercome under tainment, we’ve all heavy fire. It is seen them — movies, designed to aid books and programs the government that glamorize and in protecting idolize spies. They American citiare the enigmatic and zens from anothRACHEL ANNE unknowable select er attack. There FLETCHER few who protect our is a catch though: Star Columnist country behind the it may infringe scenes. upon a few of our James Bond with civil liberties. The his “license to kill” and Tom same goes for the recent NaCruise protecting the NOC tional Security Agency wirelist in Mission Impossible at all tapping scandal. The New York costs. However, in today’s soci- Times reported in December ety, is all this even legal? that President Bush authoWe applaud these Holly- rized wiretapping of American wood spies for their ruthless citizens without the usually reenthusiasm for our nation, and quired court order. The legalnot just because they offer lots ity of Bush’s actions has yet to of shoot-’em-up entertain- be determined. But these wirement; we want to be protected taps, like the Patriot Act, were and find some level of comfort designed to find internal and knowing we have those peo- external threats and to protect ple out there safeguarding us Americans. from the evils of the world. Of It is for the courts to decide course, Hollywood is an entity whether or not Bush has suball its own, not comparable verted the legal system by auto the real world. However, it thorizing these wiretaps, and it does raise the question: What remains to be seen if this will are we willing to sacrifice to turn into the Watergate of our protect our nation and way of generation. life? Nevertheless, I find myself Since its passage after Sept. agreeing with Bush’s actions.
He obviously is not doing this for personal or political gain. Look at the heat he is getting for his actions. Some call it an abuse of power and argue that he is turning into “King George.” Bush authorized these wiretaps in 2002, after Congress gave him the authority to execute the war on terrorism. According to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, it should be noted that wiretaps on communications between two U.S. citizens still require judicial approval. Only in the rare case involving communications between a U.S. citizen and known terrorists in other countries — where there is a very real possibility of a security threat — does the president’s order bypass the judiciary and bring the case under the information security jurisdiction of the CIA, NSA or Defense Department (in a war zone). These organizations do not normally have to go through the courts to monitor an external threat. If these wiretapped calls can be viewed as an external threat, I fail to see the scandal. I am not calling to give the president all-out freedom to
defer our civil liberties and right to privacy. But herein lies the catch: We want protection from attacks and to maintain our liberty and way of life. Still, in order to achieve this protection, we must surrender some of those liberties, therefore preserving others. In the months shortly after Sept. 11, everyone was gungho about doing whatever was necessary to thwart another terrorist attack. I feel we have lost this fervor. Collectively, we have pushed those events nto the back of our minds and are willing to compromise our national security for a few more day-to-day conveniences. This is a terrible affront not only to those who lost their lives that day, but also to those who have died and are still dying to defend this nation. Giving civil rights to terrorists who conducted a heinous terrorist act in the United States would be hard to explain to grieving family members of the victims. Countless men and women gave their lives to preserve this nation. Are we so callous and selfish that we’re unwilling to sacrifice anything to do the same?
Stern tests boundaries with new satellite radio show RYAN JOHNSON U. Arizona Arizona Daily Wildcat
C:> You smell like feet|
Jeff Cole/Star illustration The Main Point is the opinion of the newspaper’s editorial board. Columns are the opinions of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the full staff, Texas State University-San Marcos Student Media, the School of Journalism and Mass Communication or Texas State University-San Marcos.
The University Star 601 University Drive Trinity Building San Marcos, TX 78666 Phone: (512) 245-3487 Fax: (512) 245-3708
(U-WIRE) TUCSON, Ariz. — During his first satellite radio broadcast on Jan. 9, Howard Stern promised a new breed of radio. He declared himself free from the federal regulators who hounded him during his terrestrial radio days and vowed that his new show will be wild. With no censors to stop his cursing, he announced that he would pursue previously banned acts, including live sex, on the show. For Michael Powell and others who had badgered Stern from the Federal Communications Commission for two decades and fined him $2.5 million, it was time to cringe. But for a growing population of nearly 10 million satellite radio subscribers, it was time to rejoice. When Sirius announced its $600 million Stern deal in 2004, satellite radio gained new legitimacy, and it is now culling creative content from traditional radio. Whether you’re someone like me who listened to Stern during high school or you think he’s a chauvinistic asshole, this push toward less
regulation should be welcomed. The main difference between satellite radio and AM/FM, besides the ability to access it anywhere, is that it is subscription-based. This means that companies such as Sirius derive their revenue from users rather than advertisers, leaving music stations commercial-free. But equally important is that the FCC doesn’t regulate content on satellite radio; according to Stern, that’s what drew him away from his 8 to 12 million-listener base to Sirius’ mere 3.3 million. It’s not that the FCC is regulating less. In fact, it has been increasing the stringency of its regulations for a decade, though its pace was quickened by 2004’s infamous Super Bowl halftime show. As an illustration, when Stern broadcast “greatest hits” episodes that weren’t restricted when they first aired, stations had to censor significant portions to fit today’s standards. No, the trend away from regulation is because users are migrating to media forms that aren’t tightly monitored. This isn’t a new trend, either — look at the long-running success of HBO. People are moving to unregulated outlets at an accel-
erated rate because of novel technologies. And it goes beyond television and radio. Not even satellite radio is as unfettered as the Internet radio stations, which can be broadcast from anywhere in the world. Want to have racier content? Find the least restrictive government. Regulators need to realize that if they don’t wise up, they will become a dying breed. Just look at gambling regulators. Internet gambling is outlawed in the United States. Lawmakers thought it should be restricted to casinos and worried about its influence on children. But instead of journeying to casinos, millions of users flock to online gaming sites based in England and other foreign countries. Of course, this only adds insult to injury for the federal government: Not only are they unable to regulate it, they can’t even tax it. Many in favor of stricter regulations argue that they are merely watching out for kids. But that responsibility should fall to parents. A more valid cause would be technology that allows parents to censor what their children see and hear.
But something tells me this isn’t the true aim of organizations such as the American Family Association. Based on the vigorous campaign they unleashed after “Nipplegate,” it seems they simply want to dictate content for all Americans. After all, most children now have access to the Internet, which has content far worse than that of Howard Stern. Even so, Stern isn’t 100 percent safe yet. The FCC does regulate satellite in one respect: It controls the bandwidth and presided over its sale to the two highest bidders, XM and Sirius. Every eight years, the terms are renegotiated, and the FCC could threaten content by saying decency will influence bandwidth decisions. And many are pushing lawmakers to give the FCC more power to censor satellite radio. They may succeed, but will still ultimately fail. For those who like creativity and dislike regulation, the trend toward new technologies is already set. Strict media regulation is a goner, one way or another. This column was originally published in the Arizona Daily Wildcat on Jan. 12.
Letters policy: E-mail letters to starletters@txstate.edu. Letters must be no longer than 300 words. No anonymous letters will be printed. We reserve the right to edit for grammar, spelling, space and libel. We reserve the right to refuse obscene, irrelevant and malicious letters. All e-mails must include the name and phone number of the letter writer. Students should also include their classifications and majors.
Editor In Chief..................David Michael Cohen, stareditor@txstate.edu Managing Editor..................................Joe Ruiz, staropinion@txstate.edu News Editor......................................Kirsten Crow, starnews@txstate.edu Assistant News Editor.........................Jason Buch, jb1163@txstate.edu Trends Editor..............Christina Gomez, starentertainment@txstate.edu Photo Editor.......................................A.D. Brown, starphoto@txstate.edu Sports Editor...................................Miguel Peña, starsports@txstate.edu
Copy Desk Chief.........................Emily Messer, starcpchief@txstate.edu Design Editor.......................................Matt Rael, stardesign@txstate.edu Systems Administrator.............Chris Jeane, starsysadmin@txstate.edu Webmaster...........................Ryan Johnson, starwebadmin@txstate.edu Art Director.......................................Marisa Leeder, ml1131@txstate.edu Advertising Coordinator......................Jodie Claes, starad1@txstate.edu Account Executive......................Richard Para, Jr., rp1060@txstate.edu
Account Executive................................Ana Kulak, ak1094@txstate.edu Account Executive..................................Lindsay Lee, atlas@txstate.edu Account Executive.....................Lindsey Randolph, lr1068@txstate.edu Student Business Manager................Robby Silva, rs1237@txstate.edu Publications Coordinator..Linda Allen, starbusinessoffice@txstate.edu Publications Director..............Bob Bajackson, stardirector@txstate.edu Visit The Star at www.UniversityStar.com
The University Star is the student newspaper of Texas State University-San Marcos published Tuesday through Thursday during the fall and spring semesters. It is distributed on campus and throughout San Marcos at 8 a.m. every other Wednesday of Summer I and II with a distribution of 6,000. Printing and distribution is by the New Braunfels Herald-Zeitung. Copyright January 17, 2006. All copy, photographs and graphics appearing in The University Star are the exclusive property of The University Star and may not be reproduced without the expressed written consent of the editor in chief.