Letters To The Editor


July 07, 2004

Internet ruling scores victory over puritanism

I substantially agree with The Sun's editorial "Porn, kids, the Internet" (July 1), but I would go even further.

I believe education can never be a bad thing. If children stumble across Web sites some prudes define as "pornography," it can be considered a part of their education about the world. Questions can be asked and answered.

As The Sun suggests, in the final analysis, children are the responsibility of their parents and it is they, not the government or some nosy Puritans, who should in every instance determine the extent of what is available to them.

And if we are to have government outlaw some Web sites, pictures, movies or whatever because some people consider them harmful, I'd suggest starting with portrayals of violence rather than sex.

I don't believe pictures necessarily lead to "bad" actions. At the least, that claim needs to be proved before we accept any government attempt at regulating the content of Web sites any adult may now freely choose to see.

Fortunately, those of us who oppose permitting Big Brother to determine the extent of our Internet freedom held off the prudes in the recent Supreme Court vote. But the vote was scarily close, with five judges voting for personal liberty and four for prudery.

And that temporary victory might be turned around by a future Supreme Court that might be remade by whoever is elected in November.

Kenneth A. Stevens


High court affirms our basic principles

When our country is under attack, it's hard to remember the liberties we're fighting for. But the Supreme Court's rulings that limited the administration's powers to incarcerate people indefinitely without charge were nothing short of a reaffirmation of the basic principles that the Founders wrote about ("Checking the chief," Opinion

Commentary, July 2).

Benjamin Franklin noted that "they that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary security deserve neither liberty or security."

He would have been proud of the Supreme Court.

Reza Shadmehr

Ellicott City

Bush seeks to save the sanctity of life

Carmen Barroso's column on President Bush's "anti-woman" policies is about the most disgusting piece of journalism I've ever seen The Sun display ("Anti-woman deeds louder than words," Opinion * Commentary, July 30).

Like most so-called feminists, Ms. Barroso fails to understand the reasoning behind Mr. Bush's policies. If she would open her mind she would see that these policies are not directed against women but rather toward the preservation of the moral laws that have governed this world for millennia.

Mr. Bush isn't against equality for women; he is merely trying to protect the sacredness of life based on our Judeo-Christian heritage.

As anyone who knows anything about the course of human history knows, rights are only given and preserved under governments based on the religious heritage those governments were founded on.

But in a society so deranged as ours, where religion is almost universally denounced as a valid political principle, such "rights" do not carry on.

Adam Nettina

West Friendship

The writer is a sophomore at Mount St. Joseph High School.

Media don't need spot in State House

The Sun claims a disservice will be done to the voters if the media are moved from their offices in the State House ("Evict the messenger," editorial, June 30). In my opinion, a disservice is done to the voters by The Sun's biased reporting.

While it may be convenient to have a room in the State House, I cannot believe that the media will suffer that greatly by being moved from the State House for a period of time-- or forever, for that matter.

When the media was given space in the State House, in 1961 by The Sun's account, communication was not as advanced as it is today. The media now have access to fax machines, cell phones, e-mail and wireless Internet communications.

With the ability to communicate so easily, I believe the government's need for space should take precedence over The Sun's desire for office space.

Steven P. Strohmier


Rising religious right causes Ryan's fall

I was amused at Clarence Page's bemoaning the downfall of Illinois Senate candidate Jack Ryan ("A sexless sex scandal shouldn't end candidacy," Opinion * Commentary, July 1). He wonders whether "we are beginning to ratchet the bar up too high for mere mortals who might have an interest in public service."

The bar was not raised by Mr. Ryan's foes or detractors, but by the religious right, which has hijacked the Republican Party and has created a myriad of thou-shalt-not litmus tests for potential public servants.

Likewise, Mr. Ryan's downfall came not at the hands of his foes, but by the actions of his previous supporters, to whom he became a liability once his less-than-puritanical leanings were exposed.

Baltimore Sun Articles
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.