Wednesday, April 21, 1999


THE POST


Athens, Ohio * An Independent Daily Newspaper * Ohio University
Fix problem for future

THE POST

The coal smoke stacks at Ohio University's Facilities Management Plant are causing problems for several OU students. But coal emissions, over a long period of time, could have a greater impact on Athens' environment.

Students and OU employees are dealing with coal particles coming from the coal stacks and creating a mini acid rain, said John Burns, OU director of legal affairs.

Although the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency said the plant is in compliance with its guidelines, the EPA should heed some of the complaints that have been filed. Being in compliance might not necessarily mean damage is not being done.

The residue from the plant has damaged several cars, which have had to be repainted at the university's expense. OU needs to take several steps to ensure the coal plant will not cause health or other problems, which new paint and reimbursement checks cannot solve.

Subsidizing the cost of repainting the cars should be the first step. Conducting some type of study to determine the long-term effects of coal emission on a person's health and the environment should be the next step.

Although OU is planning to work with a Cleveland-based company next year to filter the emissions, this project should provide the base for future projects. Millions of dollars are being invested by the state, Sorbent Technologies Corporation and OU. The university needs to take advantage of this funding.

OU could face serious legal problems in the future if it is determined that the coal particles have caused illnesses and the university did nothing to stop the damage when it had the chance and the time.

The cost of a filter, although not legally necessary at this time, should not outweigh the value of health.

University departments within the university, such as the environmental studies department, also should research the damage being caused by the coal.

Repainting damaged cars is only a temporary fix - OU needs to find a permanent solution.

Law limits Web speech

THE POST

"You have five new messages in your inbox."

While some people can't wait to read their e-mail, others are annoyed with random messages - especially messages that contain obscene material. But people who feel this way now have a federal law to assist them.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the law limiting e-mail smut does not violate free speech rights. Obscene e-mail is defined by the court as a communication that is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy or indecent with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person.

This ruling is an infringement on free speech. There is no difference between postal mail, which is not censored, and e-mail. If people don't want to read the e-mail, they can just throw it away like junk mail.

Because the Internet is a new medium, it shouldn't be regulated in this manner so soon, and there are existing laws for people to use if they feel the e-mails go too far such as regulations on harassment and corruption of a minor.

Although obscene e-mails are not condoned, free speech rights outweigh the possible negatives of e-mail use.


[Front Page] [Top Story] [Today's Edition] [The Post Archives] [About The Post] [Post Phone Numbers] [Staff Resumes] [Advertising Information] [Contact Us] [Useful Links] [Entertainment]