It was a damp, chilly May afternoon near the end of a fabulous multi-day rafting trip on Northern California's Cal Salmon River. I was rummaging through the back seat of my car, trying to locate a sweatshirt, when an elderly man approached and began reading my bumper stickers.
"Damn," I thought. Almost made it through the trip without engaging in a political brouhaha with a random stranger.
This man, however, turned out to be somewhat insightful. At the end of a lengthy conversation, he told me how he was a Vietnam veteran but had marched proudly in an anti-war demonstration a year before. "Look," he said in conclusion, "I find it disgusting when people burn flags to show their disapproval for this country. But does that mean there should be a law against burning flags? No. Because I have the right to tell the flag burner that I think he's a piece of crap."
The First Amendment in essence preserves the right of Americans to do whatever they feel like doing and say whatever they feel, regardless of what others think. But what about when people wield its power to the real detriment of others, especially children?
According to polls, Americans' support of the First Amendment has returned to pre-Sept. 11, 2001, levels. Two years ago, 49 percent of respondents agreed with the statement "The First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees." Now only 30 percent agree with that statement, and 65 percent strongly disagree.
The Supreme Court handed the big numero uno its most recent victory in the case of Ashcroft v. the American Civil Liberties Union. In a 5-4 vote they ruled to uphold an earlier court decision preventing the government from enforcing 1998's Child Online Protection Act. The COPA would issue jail time and fines to operators of Web sites posting sexually explicit pictures and descriptions available to minors.
Had the COPA been passed, online sex site owners would have protected themselves by forcing adult users to prove their ages prior to admittance by giving a credit card or identification number. It would be like bar owners who card people coming through the door.
The court, however, said that the free-speech rights of adult users would be sacrificed if COPA passed. And, no doubt, they would.
The Internet is packed with offensive materials my Hotmail junk folder alone houses enough filth to corrupt the minds of at least two second-grade classrooms. But with Ashcroft and the COPA targeting only sex sites, it makes me wonder why, once again, nudity and sexuality are considered more damaging than sites that encourage anorexia or teach how to build bombs.
If these COPA restrictions were actually permitted, how long would it be before adults realized the damaging potential of violent Internet games or drug-promotion sites? It is disturbing to think that young children could see the offers I receive daily, but it is not worth the precedent of setting government controls.
Thirty percent of those surveyed still think the First Amendment goes too far to protect our freedoms. But how could it be modified without giving up some essential part of this country? Some people may choose to wield their rights in damaging or offensive ways, but parents need to stop expecting the government to act as a babysitter.
The Supreme Court made the right decision. It cannot be the job of our government to protect us from ourselves.
Katie Kelberlau is a senior history and religious studies senior. She can be reached at katherine.kelberlau@asu.edu.