THE BATTALION
irruth
fercd |n
sa bargu
r murde
iRLOTTE, N.C. (AP)-Pn
iave offered plea bargains
Carolina Panthers player
and three co-defendi
in the shooting death off
rlfriend, The Charlotte Oku,
1 Sunday.
editors have dedded togivi
n the chance to plead guilt
degree murder and avoii
nurder trial, sources told
f
jth, 26, and the other men;
with first-degree murda
v. 16 shooting of Chei
Adams, 24, was pregnant#
’s baby when she was gum
hile driving in southeastCb
ancellor Adams was delivers
gency Caesarean section.
lea offers. Documents in
ies confirm that prosecute
it letters to all four defends
ng pleas.
.ith's lawyer, David Ru
client isn't interested in
n 8-
i not going to commentoni
lications from the DA's
vld The Observer. "I can say
ruth is not interested inar
her than a trial to dear
irday night, Rudolph said
comment" on the pleabaifi
jth has been jailed sinceDe
defense of pornography
Supreme Court justifiably defends racy cable TV channels) puts responsibility on parents
anet LaRue does not
like pornography, es
pecially when it is po-
ntially being seen by
oung, impressionable
hildfen. As an attorney
ith a conservative ac-
ivist organization, called
he Family Research Cen
ser (FRC), LaRue has fought the good fight on
everal occasions. Flowever, with the FRC's
nost recent supreme court battle against
jornography, LaRue and her cohorts have
nisconstrued and criticized what is in reality
very smart and solid court decision.
The courts ruling allows pornography
companies to earn profits of their product,
hich, while offensive to some, is still consti-
sutionally protected free speech. Further,
with their decision, the court has pointed out
that parents, rather than cable companies or
ler the prosecutors nor dele- ita hons, are the ones to be held responsible
s would comment on repe ;l or a s upbringing.
Last Monday, the court ruled to dismiss a
1996 federal law that sought to restrict chil
dren from viewing pornography on cable
television. The gray area of the law allowed
for cable companies to simply scramble those
unsavory channels' signals from non-sub
scribing TV's.
This technique results in the cut-up and
discolored reception any student has seen
when wondering why they call it the Spice
Channel. Problem is, this method still let audio
and visual snippets of lovin' get through to
watchers. This was reason enough for LaRue's
acted by The AssociatedPrc FRC to push for the enforcement of another
part of the same '96 law which mandated that
table television stations that did not fully
scramble the signals of those seedy broadcasts
to limit completely the airing of those stations
to between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. Aficionados of
afternoon scrambled pom were outraged. Not
only them, but companies like Playboy Televi
sion who earn their daily bread from showing
the stuff were outraged that their mid-day
broadcasts could be cut-off even for their sub
scribers. Thankfully, the supreme court found a
loophole in the law, as it is good at doing, and
made an intelligent decision.
The court decided that the best solution
was found in yet another provision of the
1996 law which mandated cable companies
to completely block the signal of any station
that an individual customer requested. This
provision put the decision up to parents
whether they wanted a particular channel,
scrambled or unscrambled to be turned of
from their television.
This should have been the perfect ending
to the debate, but the FRC would not give up
its shortsightedness. LaRue immediately
chastised the ruling, saying "It's a sad day
when the protection of children takes a back
seat to the profits of pornographers."
What LaRue and the FRC do not seem to
realize is that, while protecting children is
important, all people, yes, even pornogra
phers, have the right to earn a buck. Forcing
cable TV companies to cut their broadcast
time down to eight hours severely cripples
their profit making ability.
Max Webber and Janet LaRue may dis
agree, but that is how capitalism works. The
porn industry is an industry just like any
other providing their customers with a
product they want. Pornography is still con
stitutionally protected free speech, even if
that speech is just moans and groans. Fur
thermore, the industry has created thou
sands of jobs for American workers, and not
just of the hand and blow variety.
Another point the FRC seems to be
missing is that, ultimately, it is not up to
porn producers to watch out for Ameri
ca's children.
Pornography in all its forms should be
susceptible from outside regulation to keep it
from young eyes — and this is already hap
pening. Blocking and, to a lesser extent,
scrambling of indecent television stations
work. They do not hinder a company's cash
flow nor do they harm those old enough to buy
a subscription, turn it on and be turned on.
Hugh Hefner should not be held responsi
ble for what the kids of America see, it simply
is not his job. His job is to cavort around the
Playboy mansion all day in that silly red robe
and make sweet, sweet love to the bunnies.
However, the ultimate benefit of the supreme
court's ruling is that it puts the final decision
of what a child sees into the very hands it
should rest in — a parent's. The pom industry
makes a product, just like the bleach industry
does. It is up to the parent to keep their chil
dren from watching porn just as it is their job
to keep a kid from drinking a gallon cf bleach.
LaRue and the FRC should stop demanding
pornographers and those who earn a living of
off indecent material to constantly have to ap
peal to the most offended denominator.
LaRue may hate pornography like a strange
version of The Catcher in the Rye, and think it
her job to try to protect children from it.
However, producing porn, as filthy,
sweaty and depraved as it may be, is the full
time job of many lucky individuals and the
FRC should let them do their job without cut
ting into their ability to make money. If
LaRue wants to save America's children she
should go home, call the cable company and
block her own TV's channel 69. This is the
best and already in place system to keep the
kiddies away from the bunnies. Hopefully
others will follow and the FRC will stop act
ing like lawyers and start acting like parents.
Eric Dickens is a senior English major.
am not
ing to corn
ent on any
immunica-
vs f offtce U t ‘Most favored nation 5 status with
say that Rat TTr»
ttruth is not China benencial to U.S. economy
rterested in
ything other
an a trial to
ir his name."
I!
— David Rudoi
Carruth's attornej
n what might be
considered an
■ jlodder coupling
than Felix and Os
car, President Clin
ton and the Repub
lican majority in
Congress find
themselves allied
?nd of the year,
ith. Van Brett Watkins,
Eugene Kennedy, 24; afi
Drew "Boss" Abraham,! 1
uld face life in prisoner
nalty if convicted of first-i
rder.
)ur men also are each chargt
ispiring to commit murdt
into an occupied vehicles
MARK
PASSWATERS
on a highly emotional issue. A bill
granting the People's Republic of China
ludolf wants CarruthtriedJ P™ent Most Favored Nation
(MFN) trading status will be voted on
this week, and many liberal members of
Congress are upset over the mea
sure. They say that such a measure
would eliminate the United States'
ability to improve human rights in
China and would coddle a totalitar
ian communist system.
Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., gave a
speech in the House in which he
;un to try to kill. Adams' a';|asked, referring to this bill, "Are we
d. ’ iprepared to sell our souls?"
lea offers call for differentltl No, Congressman — those who
nishment based on thedefe vote for the measure are more inter-
The second gripe is that granting per
manent MFN status to China takes away
the biggest stick the United States can
wield in an attempt to make China
change. Increasing tariffs on China,
MEN opponents reason, would damage
their economy and force China to bow to
America's will. Hogwash. American
goods and services are consumed by the
upper classes of Chinese society, not the
great masses of people. Increased prices
on American goods and services would
be a minor discomfort that could be toler
ated. On the other hand, Chinese imports
leged role in the slaying
records. Carruth could face
30 years in prison, accordit
wspaper's sources,
ith and Watkins, alleged
cuments as the triggering
h plead guilty for theirdft-
cepted by prosecutors. Jt
1 for them to plead guilty
egree murder and conspira
it murder, a source said.ft
3 would run consecutively
ins, ’who has a crintf
vould get the harshest puf
a source said,
cutors have agreed to
■ plead guilty to second-^
der and conspiracy to coirf :
and serve eight to 30 yea [
aid.
?dy would also have to test
ruth and the other defend#
lam's offer calls for him
ilty solely to second-degt
sources said. He could If'
10 years in prison. Abrah#
requires him to submittot
irviews with investigati 1
aid.
ested in keeping clothes on Ameri
can children's backs. To deny China
MFN trading status would certain
ly hold some negative conse
quences for China; however, it
Would be economic suicide for the
United States.
Liberal members of Congress seem
to be under several misguided impres
sions. The first is that the United States
should not conduct free trade with
communist governments, such as Cuba.
Such a sentiment ignores history and
the current economic situation in China.
Even during the darkest days of the
Cold War, the United States and the So
viet Union traded with each other, de
spite the fact that the Soviets were con
sidered a far greater threat than the
Chinese are now.
Also, China is no longer a commu
nist state in the Marxist model. While it
does have a totalitarian government
that does not allow dissent, China actu
ally has an economic system that is de
cisively capitalist. So much for that
complaint.
can often be found at such high-class es
tablishments as Wal-Mart. Increasing tar
iffs on goods coming into the United
States would cause price increases on
everyday items that people need.
This, in turn, would cause great
problems to the American working
class, and would damage the rest of
the economy as a result. Do the liberal
members of Congress need to be re
minded that they were elected to rep
resent people in their districts and not
people in China?
The final grand fallacy on this issue
is that keeping MFN trading status
would give China no reason to change.
In fact, keeping MFN status is probably
the best way to make China reform.
Many Chinese have embraced capitalist
ideals and have benefited from them.
This "entrepreneurial class," as Gover
nor George W. Bush refers to it, has
prospered under the economic changes
in China. China's economy, which sput
tered under Marxist economic models,
has grown rapidly in the past decade. It
stands to reason that if the capitalist
economic model is that much more effi
cient than the Marxist one, the political
model might behave the same way. The
only way democracy has a chance of
flourishing in China is with free trade;
destroying that option will take any
possibility of political freedom in that
nation with it.
The opening of the Soviet Union to
the ways of the West under
g Mikhail Gorbachev led directly to
the collapse of Soviet-style com
munism. It stands to reason that
taking a similar approach with
China might have the same ef
fect. Shutting the door on free
trade with China will not cause
that nation to change, but will
cause harm to the American
economy.
At the turn of the 20th century,
American Secretary of State John
Hay developed the "Open Door"
policies toward China. Such poli
cies would not work today, as
they were blatant acts of exploita
tion. In essence, the "Open Door"
policies gave each Western power a
"sphere of influence" in Imperial China.
Now, at the start of the 21st century,
China is no longer a nation lagging far
behind the rest of the world. It is an eco
nomic power that must be dealt with as
an equal — and this means with limited
trade barriers. Giving China permanent
Most Favored Nation status would en
sure that America's economy will keep
running smoothly by keeping that trade
with China wide open.
An "Open Door" toward China to
day would be of great benefit to both na
tions and should be embraced. If China
were to be economically ostracized by •
the United States, as liberal Democrats
desire, it would be a horrible mistake.
• ^ ; • *• • j,fc . .r* *
Columbine tape rehashes tragedy
Mark Passivaters is a senior
electrical engineering major.
A tough year has passed for
those involved in the tur
moil following the mas
sacre at Columbine High School,
but life has continued and the
memories have started, ever so
slightly, to blur.
That is, until a tape showing
viewers the blood-bathed school
circulated through the mass media. The tape's pur
pose, to train firefighters and rescue workers for simi
lar crises, seemed to be legitimate.
Families of the victims heard of the tape and want
ed a copy for themselves to aid in lawsuits claiming
that officials mishandled the event and failed to take
heed of warning signs before the massacre occurred.
The courts agreed. And not only did the
families gain access to the tapes, but
everyone else did too, for the completely
reasonable price of 25 bucks.
If only everything in the tape situa
tion were so reasonable. Spreading these
graphic scenes around the community
surrounding Columbine was wrong. For
several days after the tape's release,
newspapers and broadcasts showed
clips of bloodied textbooks and the li
brary floor littered with cards marking
the dead bodies' spots.
Flipping on the television after the
tape was released, many in the commu
nity were probably plagued with flash
backs of an awful event they were trying
to forget. The people of Littleton, Col.,
have suffered enough. Insensitivity by
the media should stop — immediately
and completely.
The Washington Post published an ar-
tide reporting the outrage caused by the
tape's release to the public, accompanied by — what
else? — pictures of the bloody scenes depicted on the
tape. A letter to the editor published May 14 asked
why The Post used the photos if the people involved
with Columbine were upset by them. The Post should
have known that they would not appreciate more
bloody photos being published.
Instead of just showing the pictures for that one
day. The Post still allows willing Web surfers to see the
pictures and even view clips of the tape on their Web
site. In a nation claiming to loathe the amount of vio
lence available for consumption, it is hard to under
stand why blood and guts still prevail in the news.
However, not all blame belongs to the mass media.
First, one must consider that the Littleton Fire De
partment made the tape. The department even added
a soundtrack complete with a Sarah McLachlan song
and an anthem written by Columbine students after .
the massacre. The department should not have dis
tributed a training tape consisting of graphic scenes
from one of the most publicized tragedies of 1999 so
soon after the event.
And though the tape's editor probably had only
the best of intentions when adding the soundtrack, the
musical additions added their own problems, since
the department unfortunately forgot to ask permis
sion to use the copyrighted material.Now the fire de
partment is being sued for copyright infringement for ”
a totally unnecessary soundtrack.
Others intimately involved with the massacre can
not claim innocence in this new situation, either. Fami- •
lies of the victims demanded their own copies so they ..
could sue those who did the "wrong" thing when the
massacre occurred. It is not hard
to imagine that a well-publicized '
American tragedy is surrounded
by as many lawsuits as newsgath-;..
erers.
By going to the courts and ob
taining copies of the tape so quick
ly, the families inadvertently al
lowed everyone access to the
sensitive material. The court did
what the families wanted — they
allowed them a copy of the tape —
but they also allowed anyone else
to have a copy as well, which is
not what the families intended.
According to The Washington
Post, Jefferson County Attorney *■''
Frank Hutfless decided to make
the tapes public "in order to avoid
additional lawsuits by the public •
or news media that would likely
result in the release of the [tapes]
to the general public." This quick
release halted the Littleton Fire Department's plans to
edit the tape, as well as shocked the community trying
to heal from the tragedy. #■
Not only did the demands of the families cause
their neighbors extraordinary pain, it also brought
them extra-gory, extra-long footage of that pain.
The Columbine tape saga gives Americans yet an
other example of human error amidst tragedy. Unfor
tunately, the mistakes made caused people more grief,
more lawsuits and more nightmares.
Maybe there will not be a "next time" to corre
spond with the massacre at Columbine High. Howev
er, if there is, maybe someone will pay attention to
what happened this time, and in the future, tragedies
like Columbine will not turn into a $25 novelty.
Not only did
the demands
of the suing
families cause
their neighbors
extraordinary
pain, it also
brought them
extra-gory,
extra-long
footage of
that pain.
Jill Riley is a senior journalism major.