Robert O'Neil wrote an article about the possible added restrictions on web browsing, specifically to pornography, at California Polytechnic State University. The restrictions came about because a Professor accidentally pulled up porn on her computer in front of her students. O'Neil goes onto debate whether or not limiting browsing is okay or not on a University's website.
O'Neil seems to be describing an event and the consequences that have arised afterward. He says that even though the popping up of the content on the screen was an accident it is still offensive to and demeaning to female faculty members, administrators, and students. I believe that O'Neil is making a mistake here by specifically stating females and leaving out the male faculty members, administrators, and students. Women are not the only sex that could be offended by such imagery. Some men may also have higher standards than that and would also be offended.
Also the article is supposed to be addressing the issue of colleges banning certain content but O'Neil brings up libraries and searching for porn on those computers. Public libraries where children are present and public universities where there are only adults are not exactly a comparable population; so in my opinion it is pointless for him to bring it up.
O'Neil does not seem to present a clear position of an arguement throughout the article and leaves off with a very ambiguous statement that does not leave you with a clear conclusion of the main point of the article. I think that he could have done a better job making the article less dry and more interesting to read. The topic is certainly not boring, it has to do with first ammendment rights and censorship. If he had cut out the paragraph about the library and talked about that more instead it would have better supported his arguement.
I think your comparison between public spaces is interesting and relevant.
ReplyDelete