Sections

Censor all pornography

The editorial written on Feb. 6 as a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board concerning Internet "censorship" ("Indecent Proposal: Communications bill launches `Net censorship") argued that banning pornography on the `Net "inhibits freedom of speech." I disagree with this view and believe it is altogether proper for pornography to be banned from the `Net considering its harmful consequences. Laws already exist that prohibit various forms of pornography. Thus, saying that with this bill "lawmakers added a clause to the First Amendment of the Constitution," is misrepresenting what freedom of speech means.

In the modern university "open-mindedness" seems to be revered above all else, but only if that openness shuns absolute standards of truth. Did this nation become great because its Constitution says that "citizens should be free to express what they wish," as the Daily has written? Or, in this pluralistic society, do we still believe we are "one nation under God," and that real freedom inherently implies responsibility?

Some may argue concerning this issue of pornography on the Internet that it cannot be perfectly enforced or we are just trying to protect people from themselves. What do we stand for as a nation? Are we going to stand by and watch the society continue into the abyss of immorality, or are we going to try to make a difference?

Finally, regarding the consequences of pornography, consider these words from the sixth chapter of Galatians in the Bible, "Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction, the one who sows to please the Spirit from the Spirit will reap eternal life."

MICHAEL GERHOLD

RACKHAM STUDENT