ACCESS DENIED!!!!

SUMMARY


In an article published March, 2003 in The Chronicle titled "What Limits Should Campus Networks Place on Pornography?" author and former president of the University of Wisconsin system and the university of Virginia, Robert O'Neil claimed that there was a current moral struggle going on at California Polytechnic State University.

That Moral struggle is over computer content and how if at all it should be limited. O'Neil begins by telling us a story of a college professor at Cal Poly, who was about to give a power point lecture and instead found sexually obscene images. This ignited a debate and moved  some faculty member to address the Academic Senate in efforts to change the current policy. Those who are in favor argue that sexual and hate content especially unwanted are disturbing and offensive, that they demean female students and faculty, and they believe it promotes a  hostile work environment.



They would also highlight that the University has a high standard of integrity to uphold, also the schools resources are wasted and the content presents an increased virus risk for the network and they even linked obscene Internet access to increased sexual assaults on campus. However, those opposing go straight to the First Amendment, that it is a student and faculty right to be able to view whatever material they wish and pointing out that it would be very difficult to enforce restrictions. O'Neil chimes in to put his two cents in and proposes a compromise of going back to policy and regulated some but not all content. He concludes by giving us a metaphor to help us see that we need to balance and not go to extremes.


RESPONSE

In evaluating O'Neil argument i think it is well written. I thought it was effective to get our attention with the absurd story, i would not want that to happen to me. He presents his information and evidence clearly, they way i like it. After the introduction O'Neil goes right into the meat he explain the  what the resolution would propose( a strict ban on pornography) and goes into detail the views of those who are in favor and who are opposing. He throws in some other important things that relate, his oppinion and propose solution, and concludes, basically  i like his organization. How ever, i did not like his bi-partisan approach, it seemed insincere and lifeless.

Does he understand what we are talking about here. PORNOGRAPHY,
maybe others don't feel as strong.


But I am outraged that students and faculty would be allowed to view  for example,child pornography and get away with it by a simple appeal to the First Amendment. WHAT?! I do recognized that in a university there are reasons, such as ligament research that would permit such content to be  viewed and analyzed for strictly educational purposes and the  proposed resolution would allow that to go through by special permission from the  University president.Any other reason beside strictly academic, approved by  the right authority on the campus, is not for the environment of learning and should be done in the privacy of you own home. I agree that the authority to regulate topics should be broaden but to who I'm not sure. To think my instructor could be viewing pornography for gratification twenty minutes before class makes me sick.


What is the world coming too, isn't this a no brainier, come on we are talking about porn. It's simple, if you want to view obscene things do it at home, school is for school. They should definitly lay the law down!