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.

Katherine Hay
UA alumna

Wrong to assume viewing porn leads to sex crimes

I disagree with Park Romney's stance that the UA should more aggressively supervise student Internet activities. First of all, I was disappointed that Romney chose to use the same old hackneyed argument condemning pornography. The argument that porn causes sexual deviancy is a favorite of right-wingers and religious conservatives, despite the fact that the argument is built on a post hoc fallacy. Just because something follows another thing does not mean it was caused by it. Psychology students will also recognize this argument as an improper causal assumption. The fact that sexual deviants watch pornography is purely correlational and does in no way prove that watching pornography causes sexual deviancy. It is ludicrous to think that, upon watching porn, normal people suddenly undergo some sort of Incredible Hulk-like transformation into sexual deviants. Romney goes further to say that porn can actually destroy families. This is false simply because, if a man (or a woman) has to stray to the Internet to get his (or her) jollies, there is obviously a problem with intimacy in the couple's relationship to begin with. The foray into pornography is a result of the lack of intimacy in a relationship, not the cause of it.

That said, the main reason I do not share Romney's view is that I do not like the privacy infringements that would result from the "spot checks." Even if one does not download porn using the UA network, I can guarantee that every single student has violated the code of conduct in some other way. If the UA ever decided to start actively scanning for violations, students could suddenly find themselves unable to use eBay, KaZaA and any other non-educational Web site without facing penalties. Many students who do not even watch porn would find their Internet freedom rapidly fading as a sort of civilian casualty of the war on porn. The negative consequences of this lack of freedom would undoubtedly outweigh the alleged benefits of purging the campus of porn. As it stands now, the system works fine. Sure, some students probably have problems with porn addiction, but let's not punish the rest for the offenses of a few.

Dean Lhospital
Sophomore majoring in English

'Sarape's Grill' example of how to laugh at self

In response to Prahant Raj's letter: "Sarape's Grill" is humorous. It provides a quick laugh during my very busy and stressful day and I am thankful for anything that can do that. Yes, this campus is very diverse; there are many people from all over the world. "Sarape's Grill" characters happen to be Mexican and, yes, they have accents, but that doesn't make them any less intelligent or less capable of communicating with others. Also, because this is such a diverse campus, we should all know by now that stereotypes do not apply here. We are all different; none of us fits into one certain group or category. I would understand all the controversy if Arnie Bermudez wasn't Hispanic, but he is. If we can't laugh at ourselves and find humor in inaccurate and ignorant perceptions of ourselves, we'll never survive. We need to live a little and laugh a little and not worry about what others think of us because we know the truth. One day we will show them, not just tell them. Arnie, keep doing what you are doing!

Monica Caballero
undeclared freshman

Enacted props would be unfair, destructive to city

Propositions 200 and 201 will do two things: congest traffic and install a new, still unused, version of the current bus system. First, cutting up roads, even "only one lane," will cause congestion and will cause problems with business access. No one wants to drive through some dirty, congested trail surrounded by barricades to shop unless they absolutely have to. I experienced this firsthand for years when I lived in Phoenix.

While I do not promote the elimination of the bus line, I think every 10 minutes is a little too often. Imagine Bus #1 is late getting to the bus stop right by the intersection. All buses have to stop at each destination. Bus #2 comes rolling up just as Bus #1 has come to a stop. Traffic jam.

Furthermore, it has been my experience when talking with bus riders that the vast majority of those who use public transportation would prefer not to. And, to put it in perspective, the term "light rail" is a little misleading - it's a bus secured to a track. If history is any indicator, this will be in as much disuse and disrepair as the current bus line. There is a limited bus riding/tram taking population.

The rest of Americans seem to be in love with their cars, or at least the freedom an automobile represents.

If I could get the taxpaying households of Tucson to donate only $29, I'd have a beautiful car. As it is, I have to put up with what I've got. Taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for my transportation and, by the same token, I should not have to pay for others' bus or light rail rides. Don't expect me to use my gas money to pay for your transportation.

Kara Karlson
veterinary science and journalism sophomore