OCR Text |
Show Sunday, August28, 2005 DAILY HERALD EDITORIALS IN OUR VIEW DailySHerald O25THE PIPING MEWS, Ce oem Little character in evidence riday’s testimony in the trial of two former BYU football players illustrates the ambi—~ aresooften rape cases — ant howoeicescan have against another's. No wonder women don't come forward very often. A recent study by the state Commission on Criminal and Juv Justice found that while more than one in eight Utah women will be raped in their lifetimes, fewer than 10 perThe former players, cent will go to police. Most of the Rashada and B.J. Mathis, both now women surveyed said they would 19, told the Daily Herald last week be more afraid that family and that their lives have been made difwould find out they were ficult since the rape charges were assaulted than of ing pregleveled by a 17-year-old white nant or iring a transgirl from Salt Lake . This mitted disease. Many fear having maysurprise a couple of 19-yeartheir motives questioned and their olds,but it's not surprise to us. background checked. Wewould expect life to become The woman accusing moredifficult. leven and Mathis has passed those are feeling the consequences of psy: ‘ical barriers. Her bigtheir own bad choices, and they've gest problem maynow be the noticed that life is not always an testimony of Karland Bennett, a adolescent game. They could goto former BYU teammateofthe acprison if convicted. cused, who testified about a series Rashada described how some of sex acts'he said he witnessed. girls at a fast food restaurant in Hetalked about the consumption his hometown walked up to him of alcohol and the group sex and and brazenly asked, “Are you a characterized the behavior of the rapist?” “It kinda shocked the mess accuser as something less than out of me,” he said. unwelcoming. Bottom Mathis added, “A lot line: The sex and alcohol of people just look at you With thi didn’t look forced to him. differently. For somebody v IS It appeared as though to just accuse you of rape, sort of the prosecution’s main you just be labeled as a 5 witness was acting of rapist” of these young men wouldlike some sympathy as they endure whattheysayis a false accusation,but it's hard mpathize. don’t deny that they were en- gaged in sexual activity with a minor. They don’t denythe alcoholor the pornographyor the fact that they had violated their promise to abide exchangefor age ‘Timefor straight talk behavior, the her own free will, he said cise possibility of arape charge is never far away. 1, It'sone i Of the job hazards of by BYU's moral code in MEDIA VOICES — andhe testified that she even made a advance on him. Bennett has some credibility problems, such as his relationship to the defendants and his own admitted behavior. So the jury is going to have to decide whom to believe. It's a dirty business, and yehope # doesn't get anydirtier. Race, thank- ee , has not raised its promiscuity. head, Both of the accused _____ are black,as are the ve that what le did other two formerplayers was rape. who had been charged in Weunderstandthe difference the case, William TurnerJr. and between a consensual sexual enBennett. But so far thereis no indication that this is relevant to the counterand rape. But it stretches credulity to hear Rashada and prosecution ofthe alleged crime. Mathis defending their character Unless some shocking new facts and upholding their tattered honor emerge,this case has nothing to in the face of what they say is do with anything except personal pernicious slander. By their own responsibility. admission, there's not much charIntent matters, of course. There acter to defame. is a distinction to be made beHad Rashadaand Mathis not tween consensual sex and rape, been overtaken by criminal charg- thoughthereare times when the es, both might have goneon indefi- line separating the twois barely nitely with late-night orgies. They perceptible. We support Rashada’s might never have been accused and Mathis’s right to defend themof anything. But withthis sort of selves against charges they believe behavior, the possibility of a rape are too harsh. Just don't try to convinceus that they are men of charge is never far away.It’s one of the job hazards of promiscuity. honor. At minimum, they've got On the otherside of the caseis some growing upto do; at most, a young woman who claims she they'll do time.This trial will deterhad been taken advantageof. mine their future. Most peopleinstinctively spring Right now,just onething is to the défense of the woman ina clear in the fog of conflicting tesrape case because they know how _timony. It is that several young disadvantaged she is in merely people chose to be places and do bringing such a charge.Afterall, things that they should not. That who knowsthe truth except those goes for both sides, and we don’t who werepresent? Cases are often care whetherthey're black, white, green or pink-and-purple polka thrownout for lack of evidence. dot. It’s often one person's word MEDIA VOICES Defensible decisions From the Los Angeles Times, Aug. 26, 2005 ——______—— ongress knew parochialism would trump national securiity in deciding which military bases to close after the Cold War, but it also understood the United States had too many Army, Navy,_ Marine and Air Force installations. So it created a nine-member commission to rule on Defense Department recommendations about what should go and what should stay. This week, as in previous rounds, the commission proved its worth. Politicians will always lobby decision-makersto keep bases open; the facilities provide economic benefits to communities and votes for officeholders. But letting a commission handle the tough vote reduces the influence of politics, because unlike employees of the Pentagon, the commissioners don’t depend on Congress for appropriations or approval of promotions. Several commissioners in recent hearings have questioned the Pentagon’s estimates of the amountof money that would be saved by closing the recommended facilities. The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission on Wednesdayrejected a Defense Department recommendation to close the Navy submarine base at Groton, Conn., as well as the naval shipyardat Kittery, Maine. The Pentagon’s suggestionto close the sub base and move16 submarines to bases in Virginia and Georgia was on shaky ground. Grotonis home to a major builder of nuclear-powered submarines;the facilities allow sailorsto train at the submarine schoolon the base and spendas long as a year on a sub being built, learning its systems in detail. On Thursday, the commission sided with the Pentagon and voted _ to close Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., where presidents andinjured troops have beentreated for nearly acentury. The Defense ment said the hospital was old and underused.It proposed consolidating operations at Bethesda Naval Hospital in Maryland and building a new military hospital nearby. President Bushwill get the commission’s recommendations —_by Sept. 8. He can sendthe list _back to the commission — which _is unlikely — or handit to Congress by Nov.7. Thenit’s up to Congress to vote yes or no on the entirelist, with no ability to add or subtract installations. That allows a national sharing of the pain and gives ee the chance to blame the commission, a good layerof insulation from the wrath _of their constituents. From the Baltimore Sun, Aug. 26, 2005 Yet Bush has responded like someone trying to overcome a languagebarrier by speaking louder. In two major appear- he disconnect between President Bush’srationale for U.S. involvement in Iraq and whatis actually going on there is becoming ever more evident to the American people. A majority of Americans now believe the war in Iraq was a mistake,a significant shift from just a monthago,polls show.An even larger percentagebelieve the Iraq war has increased rather than diminished the terrorist threat against them personally. Further, the increasingly bloody civil and sectarian strifein Iraq and the so far unsuccessful strvggle ofits interim governmentto shape constitution that reflects a fair measure of democratic ideals underscores the growing sense that continued American military presence in Iraqis doing more harm than good. \dy Sheehan’s impromptuprotest outside the president's Texas ranch has givenvoice to that view with a force that surprised evenher. ances this week — surrounded by military veterans and families serving as human props — he invoked the familiar specter of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks andtriedwe again to promote the widely discredit notion that those responsible were tied to Iraq. In new variations on the theme, Bush warned thatterrorists are converging in Iraqto try to “break our will” but vowed that America would“finish the task” for which nearly 1,900 American servicemen and women gavetheir lives because “we owethem something.” The president owes them andthe rest of America more,though, than rallies, sloganeering and - most offensiveofall a still-committed military mom counterpart to the grieving Sheehan. Some straight talk about an exit strategy would be a good start. Wedon't expect Bush to admit to all the mistakes and miscalculations that got the United States to whereit is today in Iraq. Nor do we underestimatethe difficulty of extricating American forces there. But it’s an insult to suggest all that’s required to prevail is grit and perseverance. The president's fellow Republicans on Capitol Hill, whose political antennae are often moresensitive than those at the White House,feel the tide turning among their constituents. Voters are growing ever morepessimistic about the prospects of a military success in Iraq, and want someorall of US.forces withdrawn. Accordingly, some GOP lawmakersare distancing themselves from Bush's policy, a phenomenon likely to grow as next year’s midterm elections draw closer. Pressure is building for a debate in Congress this fall on setting a timetable for withdrawal. Bush's response was to declare: “As long as I’m president, wewill stay, we will fight, and we will win the war on terror.” He'sin denial, or protesting too much. Either way, the accumulated evidence suggests he just isn’t credible. PAUL K. MCMASTERS Constructing an Internet red light district f you think politics makes strange bedfellows, try pornography. Let merephrase that. A ingly uncontroversial proposal to create a special domain onthe Internet to help protect children (and others) from adult content developed strong opposition onthe eveofits implementation earlier this month. It has been put on hold. Joining forces to oppose the proposal: pornography fighters and some pornography producers. Certainly these unusual bedfellows havedifferent reasons for not wanting something called the xxx domain to be created on the Internet, but when they speak with onevoice, the real andvirtual governing listen. That’s why the U.S. Commerce Department,besieged by 6,000 letters of protest about the creation ofa “red-light district” on the Internet,fired off its ownletter requesting a delay in implementation. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers,the international body that among wecms maps Internet geography,agi Why is any of thispin to Americans? Likeit or not, smut is a multibillion-dollar business on the Internet.It is driven by demand andprotected by the Constitution. We need to accept that as well as deal with it. Fiveyears ago,the Internet’s governing bodies and others began tinkering with the idea of creating a separate place onthe Internet for adult-oriented material “xxx” as one of the 260 address suffixes that now identify countries,institutions and other cyber Whena concerted letter-writing campaign can prompt the federal agency to big-foota sincere and promising effort to makethingseasier and less risky for parents, consumers andproviders, then strange bedfellows with strong voices becomenotjust an oddity but a threat. neared, however,oppositionsolidified. The Family Research Council, among other anti-porn groups, began sees letters and pressure. Murmurs of opposition began toarise within the adult-enter- a proposal for implementing it. The proposal was sponsored bythe International Foundation for OnlineResponeiaky, tainmentindustry also. The anti-porn groups say a .xxx domain would makeNet porn legitimate, increase the amountof such material and reduce the pressure on the U.S. governmentto go after pornographers. “The .xxx domain proposal is an effort to panderto the porn industry andoffers nothing but false hope to an American public which wantsillegal ena prosecuted, not rewarded,” said Patrick Trueman ofthe Family Research Council. Fortheir part, some adult content providers voiced concern that the industry might be forced to give up lucrative dot-com real estate and be “zoned” to the margins ofinternet traffic, or that the move might be turned intoa tool for fegulation or prosecution. The last-minute opposition cameas a troubling surprise to ICM Registry, which hadcarefully tried to forma system that worked to the advantageofall stakeholders. The sponsoring foundation, IFFOR,has set out missions thatinclude making the public aware of ways to protect childrenonline, sponsoring child safety and anti-child pornography orgapees and programs,ie creating a to the adult industry. On June 1, ICANNapproved the proposal. As the time for implementation of the xxx domain earlier this month and providers of comer“8 well as support for freedom of expr ession. The adult businesses that voluntarily sign up with ICM Registry would be re- destinations, The goal of the “.xxx” idea was to help pues a and anti-porn groups identify access by children to indecent aaato protect the privacy and security of consumers who access such material; and to encourageprovidersof adult content to act more Xxx conversation turnedserious " about a year and a half ago when a Flor- ida firm, the ICM Registry, put together cy, quired to sign a contract stating that they will adhere to responsible business practices, protect youngsters from marketing or targeting, defend customerprivacy, ensurereliable identification of content (meta+tagging) and combat “unlawful malicious codes and technologies” such as spamming,spoofing and pfishing. Establishing a .xxx domain would not eradicate Net porn,of course,but it could provide one moretoolfor parents trying to block suchsites and better monitor their children’s onlineactivities. It could encouragethe adult industry to be more responsible. It could help grown-ups makebetter decisions. Andall of that could constitute a significant step forward. Worry about governmentregulationin this situation is legitimate even if the likelihood is slight. ICANN is a private-public entity with global responsibility for the Internet's operational stability. Theoretically,it is insulated from government control or sway. But the U.S. Commerce Department actually operates the root server system that makes the domain names work. When a concerted letter-writing campaign can prompt the federal agency to big-foot a sincere and promising effort to make thingseasierand less risky for parents, consumers and providers, then strange bedfellows with strong voices become not just an oddity but a threat. Official U.S.intervention could heat up concerns in some countries that ICANN is overly influenced by American policy-makers. In the minds of many, pornography is a worst-class ticket to perdition. They believe that full-force prosecution, even if it is impractical or unconstitutional,is the only option. On the other side are those who believe that private and government powersshould not interfere with what grown-ups choose to access in cyberspace. In the meantime,the vast majority located somewhere between those two positions should welcome anytoolthat helps Internet users, young andold, safely navigate the Internet. » Paul K. McMasters is First Amendment atthe First A Center, 1101 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22209. Contact him at www. firstamendmentcenter.org or pmcmasters@fac.org. | |