No reason to restrict porn watching in residence halls

The UA should not attempt any restrictions on the viewing of pornography. As long as the material being viewed is not child pornography or legally obscene, it is protected by the First Amendment. The university is a state actor and is prevented from restricting access to protected speech without a compelling state interest and narrowly tailored suggested restrictions that fit that interest. Since the students are 17 or over, the default state interest of protecting minors from indecent material does not apply in this situation. Filtering software would cause even more First Amendment conflicts because the software is so inaccurate. The software has the problem of being both over-inclusive and under-inclusive. It blocks Web sites that do not contain any pornography, and yet still allows sites that do have pornography. Park Romney speaks of a "decent, law-abiding, high-class university," implying that this can only be achieved without access to pornography. However, there is nothing illegal about pornography, so long as it is not child pornography. Also, the university has had access to the Internet for many years now and it can be fairly assumed that the downloading of pornographic materials by students is not a new occurrence (nor is viewing pornography in any form, for that matter). Yet, even with all this activity, the university has not become an "indecent, law-questioning, low-class university," devoid of any morals or character. [Read article]

Last week, the Sex Crimes Prevention Act was enacted by the Arizona Legislature. It will give students, faculty and staff access to the names of all registered sex offenders working or living on campus.

"I think it's going to make (campus) a much safer place," Jon Kyl said. "Students on a university campus should have just as much right to a safe environment as anyone living

anywhere."

But how does this make campus safer for anyone? Let's say we do find out a student in our class was formerly convicted of a sexual offense. Should we be sure not to sit at a desk next to him or her? Does that make us safer? Should offenders be required to eat alone in the student union? Or perhaps they can pick up a T-shirt they are forced to wear when they gain employment or register for classes, just so we all know and can feel relieved. [Read article]

While you may have noticed many changes this semester in the Wildcat, something that might not have caught your attention is the addition of a new position at the paper.

I am the associate editor, a.k.a. the reader advocate, and my job is to listen to your concerns.

In the past few months, the Wildcat has been planning a series of three focus forums where editors are available to sit down eye-to-eye with a group of concerned readers and talk about the Wildcat. We want to hear the good, the bad and the ugly. Every decision that is made at the Wildcat is made with our readers in mind. We are here to provide information. [Read article]