Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 24, 2000)
OPINION Monday, January 24, 2(XX) THE BATTALION Page 15 lick here for excuses {Internet intoxication defense does not hold water intoxication. The word it- I self brings to mind small, [crowded spaces on (rthgate, a sudden fear of lice officers and a close re- onship w ith a porcelain lure in the bathroom. In brt, one usually pictures thi- altered state in associa- h with alcohol. Florida |lav yer Hllis Rubin, however, |ociates it with something else the Internet. Rubin is the lawyer for 18-year-old Michael Ttpbell of Cape Coral, Fla., who is awaiting tri- bn felony charges of know ingly transmitting a leatening message across state lines. Last L)e- jnber, as Campbell participated in an America ine chat room, he sent the message “I need to |ish what begun and if you go I don't want your tod on my hands" to Columbine High School dent Erin Walton, warning her not to attend iool the next day. Campbell’s warning implied ha he was planning to add to the list of 13 mur- Nf s that two Columbine students committed at school in April. ■ Walton did not attend school the following d f and she was not the only one. Columbine of- fic.ils shut down the high school two days early fc| w inter break due to the threatening message. Hmpbell recently apologized, calling it a "stupid, stund prank." I Ellis Rubin plans to use an affirmative defense Heads "Internet intoxication" to defend that “stu pid. stupid prank.” Rubin claims in Campbell’s __Hfense that the teen was so addicted to the Inter- ^^■1 that he was operating out of a “virtual world” at the time he made the threat, and therefore could be held responsible for his actions. I Creative defenses like this one show up previ ously in Rubin’s repertoire. The first example was ini 1977, when Rubin claimed “television intoxica- tion" in defense of another Florida teen. Rubin storms a that 15-year-old Ronny Zamora had been then jumps kef by the violence he watched on television, h the greatest caiis ‘ n 8 him to murder his 82-year-old neighbor. Zamora was eventually convicted. I In 1991, Rubin represented a woman charged with prostitution, defending her with a claim that she was suffering from Prozac-induced nympho mania. He said that her prostitution was a form of therapy for her condition, as her husband was im- maneuvers. st eru uul revisionist acai ill there is noevidc ilians at Nanjing, lorv at Tokvo's A' ( potent. She eventually pled guilty to the charges. With this latest case, Rubin has simply updated his "intoxication" defense for the 21 st century. Under the influence of “Internet intoxication,” Campbell became more than just a teenager caus ing trouble. Instead, he was drunk on the Internet. He was helpless in its grasp; ensnared in its trap. More likely, Cambell was wrapped up in its invisibility. The Internet continues to offer increasing lati tude to those who wish to discard their physical identities and adopt an alternate personality (or personalities). In a chat room, no one can be sure of anyone’s true identity. Lies are difficult to de tect in the online world, as most human senses are numbed by the presence of only a screen name Rubin and his client are claiming that the Internet is at fault for what amounts to a simple case of very poor judgement. and a string of words that serve as conversation. Campbell, like so many others who spend time chatting online, took advantage of this invisibility w hen he threatened Walton. F'vcn if he was joking, he took his anonymity to an extreme—an extreme that cannot be tolerated. Role-playing on the Inter net might be all fun and games for teens like Campbell, but it still carries the responsibility of respecting others and respecting the law. Do words mean something different on the Internet? It is an ethical question that begs an answer, and Ru bin seems to think the answer is yes. Rubin and his client are claiming that the Inter net is at fault for what amounts to a simple case of very poor judgment. However, Rubin might run into a roadblock with this new creative defense. Intoxication can be defined as either inebria tion or an excited state of delirium. Campbell was not physically inebriated, and the only delirium he was suffering from was the idea that he could make such a threat without getting in trouble. In toxication is going to be hard to justify. In a Reuters article, former Denver prosecutor Craig Silverman said, “You’d have to say that his computer slipped him a Mickey.” In addition, with a general intent crime like Campbell’s, intoxication, even in the standard al cohol-related definition, cannot legally stand on its own as an affirmative defense. However, if Rubin uses the concept of “hypno sis" in combination with "intoxication,” his de fense may be more viable. If Rubin can prove that Campbell was in a state of Internet-induced hyp nosis, his suggested intoxication may be seen as involuntary. Campbell’s defense would stand le gitimate, and America's technology buff's would find themselves with a new catch-phrase. In light of all this hype about the intoxicating Internet, maybe Northgate bars will start selling Internet instead of alcohol. Since there is no such ERIC ANDRAOS/Tm- Rattai.ION thing as an “Internet belly,” the change could be quite popular. Then again, there used to be no such thing as "Internet intoxication,” either. Guess the side effects could show up at any time. Melissa Johnston is a senior English major. (jJHSTmrmA uiid the atrocm I sav. that’s noil i. himoto and Takehfi mer soldiers slat; ‘ the occupation, d’> hey said other sold ; cribing systematic? '.either man wasc jing. survivors, someot' d to denounce thi television reported, represent the mass- iv body, wounds otr tat?" said Liu Xiutt pie holding lit white; ed : “VICTIMS .m lay of partially ni ierts also gathered* Shenyang to expri? state-run Xinhua' Buchanan rehashes past mistakes Putin's rise could bring the return of cold-war Russia F Nicholas ROZNOVSKY ujjBfgtaa : Brazos Valley Umpires Associatif people to officiate yw 5 cl adult softball, pcriencc is not rcquii® teb clinic wiU btjfl irdav January 22. h clinic ojt lamwt) • : s arc '9-\W per g# 1 .re information call rrj' I lix 693-2958 76-5062 Tony Scazaoo "^4 CALEB McDANIEL 9 Buffet 11:00- 2:30, 5:00- 01 Church St. Ic’t;c Station, TX Pat Buchanan, Reform Party presidential can didate, has always been adept at masquerading ethnocentrism as patriotism. But in a recent speech in Yorba Linda, Calif., Buchanan’s true philosophy became espe cially transparent. It is now clearer than ever that his pride in Americans is funda mentally linked with a prejudice against non-Americans. According to a Jan. 19 Associated Press report, Buchanan blamed excessive immi gration for a splintering of American soci ety. Whereas in recent years 700,000 to 800,000 legal immigrants have taken up permanent residence in America each year, he pledged to slash the number of new entry visas to between 250,000 and 300,000 per year if elected president. This radical platform says much more about Buchanan than the simple fact that he will now be getting Atlanta Braves relief pitcher John Rocker’s vote. These proposals reveal that Buchanan is still stuck in a long defunct frame of mind. He claimed that immigration is responsible for depressed wages, high crime rates in re gions with high-immigrant concentration and the Balkanization of American culture. Dis unity would be prevented, he believes, if im migrants could more easily “be melded into the great American mainstream.” The great American mainstream? That buzz phrase alone calls Buchanan’s bluff. Very early in the 20th century, when unabashed racism was still an unfortunate ly pervasive reality, social scientists used to talk about things like an American mainstream. Most of them subscribed to the then pop ular view that the best thing to do with immi grants was to conform them to conventional American life. In principle, that meant mak ing them more like white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. In practice, that translated into exclusion, discrimination and harassment. The great American mainstream? That buzz phrase alone calls Buchanan's bluff. Therefore, assimilationism was, from its very inception, a theory deeply suspicious of immigration. This kind of sociological theo ry was in some ways directly responsible for the passage of 1924 laws to limit immigra tion from southern and eastern Europe. Given this history, it should not be sur prising that the favorite analogy of America for assimilationists was the idea that the United States was like a gigantic crucible, in which diverse ethnic groups must be melted down into one uniform group. The recipe for unity was to boil down foreign ingredients, leaving a product with a distinctly Western European flavor. Despite the fact that this metaphor has long since been scorned by sociologists as overtly biased, Buchanan lamented that “in too many cases, the American melting pot has been reduced to a simmer.” Judging from his policy proposal, Buchanan means that the melting pot has failed to make immigrants more similar to indigenous Americans, not that it has been unsuccessful at reconciling disparate ele ments into a cohesive whole. Buchanan’s attempt to resuscitate long- dead ideas is especially dangerous because he knows how to make them sound attrac tive to people like himself. Even his small band of followers is disturbing evidence that his presentation still resonates with a sizable segment of the white working class. Many of Buchanan’s disciples share his anxiety about the perils of pluralism. They see ethnic differentiation as a green light for the erosion of common values, and homo geneity is a safe harbor for such easily frightened people. However, Balkanization is not caused by the brute fact of diversity but by brutes like Buchanan. The mere presence of different groups does not necessarily entail disunity, but if diversity is coupled with those who insist on ethnic sameness, then hostil polar ization is virtually unavoidable. Besides being odious, Buchanan’s hope for an iron-fenced America is wildly im practical. As religious activist Jim Wallis wrote last year, “Diversity is not an option for America, it is our reality. The issue about diversity as we prepare to enter a new centu ry is whether we will see it as a strength to embrace or a problem to be solved.” By holding the latter view, Buchanan is revealing himself for what he is — a left over from a time in America that is better off forgotten. Caleb McDaniel is a junior History major. I or the first time in the history of post-Soviet Russia, some one other than Boris Yeltsin is sitting behind the desk of power inside the Kremlin. Hand-chosen by Yeltsin as his successor, former Prime Minister Vladimir Putin assumed the office of Acting President of the Russian Fed eration on January 1,2000. To many on both sides of the Russian border, Putin and his political ideologies are a complete question mark. Unlike Yeltsin, who had been a political force in Russia since the 1970s, Putin’s rapidly rising politi cal career has occurred exclusively after the death of the Soviet Union in 1991. The official Kremlin biography of Putin contains just four lines of infor mation and conspicuously leaves out his whereabouts from 1975 to 1996. To put it mildly, Vladimir Putin is a real-life international man of mystery. For the United States and other nations, Putin’s new administration represents either an enormous oppor tunity for stronger ties or the begin ning of Russia's retreat into the role of the confrontational giant it played so well during the Cold War. Before the United States assumes that the Putin-led Russia will be exactly like its Yeltsin-guided predecessor, Amer ica should consider its diplomatic options and think about giving Rus sia a bigger seat at the table of inter national affairs. Because it constituted the bulk of the former Soviet Union, Russia was given its place in the international community by default. Unlike the So viet Union, however, the new Russia is only a second-tier player in global affairs. Domestically crippled by eco nomic and political instability, Russia has been forced by the West to sur render its international influence. As the first non-socialist leader of the Russian people in over seven decades, Yeltsin felt his primary goals were to guide the former Soviet Union through the difficult growing pains of independence and insure the continued existence of the Russian Federation. To keep the reins of power within his grasp, Yeltsin concentrated on Russia’s internal troubles. As a result, the post-Cold War world has been dominated by the United States and its Western allies. Since 1998 alone, American-led alliances have bombed the streets of Baghdad and intervened in the Kosovo conflict, both in direct defiance of strenuous objection from the Russian government. Last week, Vladimir Putin put the nations of the world on notice — Russia was no longer going to be a sideline observer in the game of inter national politics. In a completely un expected move, Putin introduced Russia’s first national security doc trine. Within its paragraphs, Russia abandoned its 1997 pledge never to consider using nuclear weapons in a first strike scenario. To put it mildly, Vladimir Putin is a real-life international man of mystery. Although the United States still has no reason to fear an imminent Russian attack, the news of Putin’s announcement has rightfully scared many of Russia’s neighbors. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, the oth er former Soviet republics were urged by the United States to relinquish their stockpiles of nuclear weapons. Now, Russia is the lone nuclear pow er among the former Soviet republics, leaving others such as Georgia and Latvia at an extreme disadvantage concerning border disputes. Insurgent forces within Russia are alanned as well. Whereas the rebels of Chechnya have so far been content to wage a guerrilla war on their own mountainous terrain, they now must consider the possibility that Putin could elect to end the conflict with a single massive strike on Grozny rather than continue to fight a long and costly campaign. The most important reaction to the announcement has yet to come from the Russian public. Many Rus sians are still forming their opinions of Putin and his ability to lead the na tion. Appointed prime minister by Yeltsin just over four months ago, the 47-year old former KGB agent still has much to prove in the eyes of Rus sia’s citizens before the next presi dential election later this year. The Russian reaction to Putin’s policies will determine whether his adminis tration will dominate Russian politics for the next four years or a new regime will take its place. With newfound success in the Chechnya campaign and last week’s national security policy announce ment, Putin has captured the faith of many Russians in his ability to lead Russia back to a position of power and international respect. To the peo ple of Russia, Putin’s apparent un willingness to flinch in the face of Western might is a refreshing change from the West-appeasing policies of the Yeltsin administration. With each passing day, Putin’s young adminis tration looks as if it may receive an extended lease on life from the Russ ian electorate. Regardless of whether Putin re mains in office or is replaced in the coming election, it is clear that Rus sia will be intent on reclaiming some of the international prestige it lost in the early 1990s. The United States and other NATO powers can ill afford to ignore the reemergence of Russia as a world power. If America cannot accept Russia as a legitimate player in international politics, then this na tion may find the new Russia to be as bitter and confrontational as its Cold War predecessor. Nicholas Roznovsky is a junior political science major. The Battalion encourages letters to the editor. Letters must be 300 words or less and include the author’s name, class and phone number. The opinion editor reserves the right to edit letters for length, style, and accuracy. Letters may be submitted in person at 013 Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Let ters may also be mailed to: The Battalion - Mail Call 013 Reed McDonald Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-1111 Campus Mail: 111.1 Fax: (409) 845-2647 E-mail: battletters@hotmail.com