Majority of Americans unhappy...

**SteveCallas** · **03-22-08, 02:35 PM**

I apologize if I misconstrued your stance, no harm intended.

Even the first ammendment has it's limitations. If you are paying the university money to attend, and something printed in the university newspaper, which isn't news, represents the university negatively and may cause it to lose money, it has all the right in the world to stop the printing of it.

**thxgoon** · **03-22-08, 03:01 PM**

Quote:

SteveCallas wrote:

it has all the right in the world to stop the printing of it.

Quote:

Richard wrote:

More socialism...less liberty but greater income equality.

Hmm...

**lcaillo** · **03-22-08, 03:20 PM**

Quote:

thxgoon wrote:

Interesting post. Good thoughts. I couldn't help but think of the Patriot Act when I read this one though.

What exactly in the Patriot Act is a concern to you? Have you ever read it? I read all of it and could find nothing that caused me concern. I am conservative with a strong libertarian tendency. I tend to lean heavily on the BOR and was very skeptical at first, but every criticism that I heard could not be borne out in either the document itself nor its effects.

**thxgoon** · **03-22-08, 04:16 PM**

Well for one thing it gives authorities permission to revoke a pilot's license without due course or cause. This is permanent. I have not read the actual document but after your post I'll check it out.

**SteveCallas** · **03-22-08, 04:26 PM**

Quote:

thxgoon wrote:

Hmm...

Are you suggesting that there should be no limits, under any circumstances, to say, print, or express anything you want, at any point in time, in front of any audience?

**thxgoon** · **03-22-08, 05:16 PM**

Quote:

SteveCallas wrote:

Are you suggesting that there should be no limits, under any circumstances, to say, print, or express anything you want, at any point in time, in front of any audience?

Yes. This is one issue where the free market would be the deciding factor. Had this editor done this at a real newspaper he would be fired by his boss, not a political faction, not the government. For that matter, who's going to hire this guy now?

Icaillo - I just read through the Patriot Act and it's kind of hard to delve into its powers without also reading all of the laws it ammends.

**thxgoon** · **03-22-08, 05:58 PM**

Just happened across this.

Interesting how the media emphisizes the connection...

**Richard W. Haines** · **03-22-08, 06:35 PM**

thxgoon,

I agree it's been civil, especially compared to other sites I've been thrown off of or just
left because of all the name calling. I don't think there's much more to add and what I
haven't said others have.

**SteveCallas** · **03-22-08, 08:11 PM**

Quote:

thxgoon wrote:

Yes. This is one issue where the free market would be the deciding factor.

So free local channels should be able to broadcast adult movies on Saturday mornings intermixed with cartoons? Should students be able to curse at their teachers and call them vulgar names? I should be able to make 50 prank calls for bomb threats? Come on. Their are limitations for everything, including the first amendment, for a variety of good reasons.

**thxgoon** · **03-22-08, 08:56 PM**

I knew that's where you were going with that question

I should have qualified myself.

Quote:

So free local channels should be able to broadcast adult movies on Saturday mornings intermixed with cartoons

Obviously no. Young children cannot make choices on their own and the parents can't always be around to protect them. This is where you get into the area of assumed risk. You go to a rock concert under the assumption that it could cause hearing damage. Duh, it's a rock concert. But you don't expect to lose your hearing standing in a public park... There's a big difference between kids watching tv and an explicit quote on the 4th page of a college newspaper.

Quote:

Should students be able to curse at their teachers and call them vulgar names?

Absolutely! If they are willing to accept that there will be consequences. Just as this editor will probably never find a job.

Quote:

I should be able to make 50 prank calls for bomb threats

Well, this is a threat. Speech and threats are 2 different things. A threat shows intent to harm. Not same as voicing opinions or ideas.

It just gets semantic at this point. I chose the smilies I did because you have to wonder where to draw the line. If the line exists for sensorship of the media, why shouldn't it for health care or anyhing else? You're willing to give a little freedom to protect your children from unsensored tv but not to see that our nation's people get the health care they need without going bankrupt. Here's another thought. It's against the law to drive a car without insurance. This is to protect others from you but it's also to keep rates affordable. Is this really that different than mandated health coverage?

**OvalNut** · **03-22-08, 09:46 PM**

I also agree with the endorsement of this thread for it's honest open discussion. Thank you all.

I do want to highlight the understanding of complete freedom.... with consequences. Criminals are free to commit heinous acts, at will, ... and potentially spend the remainder of their potentially lethal injection shortened lives in a 10x8 cell if the rest of society steps up.

I say this as an intentional segue into the capital punishment debate. Given the candor and good will of the participants in this thread to date, I feel some level of comfort in breaching this topic.

My take: Many capital punishment opponents oppose capital punishment because of, frankly, "Thou shalt not kill." Unfortunately for them, that line of argument is flawed based upon a common misinterpretation of the original Old Testament citation of the Fifth Commandment in Deuteronomy 5:17.

Deuteronomy 5:17, correctly interpreted from the original source does not say "Thou shall not kill." Rather, it does say, "Thou shall not murder." This difference is the allowance granted to governments, upon appropriate reflection on known evidence in a given case, to impose a sentence of death upon a convicted criminal for the crime of murdering another human being. The act of killing another human being is not biblically prohibited, but rather, endorsed as an appropriate method of retribution in cases involving murder, as determined by legitimate ruling entities.

The reason I bring this up is to reinforce that as others have already stated, all human beings in a free society are free to behave as they wish, and they are also free to enjoy or suffer the fullest extent of consequences of those same actions.

Tim

**lcaillo** · **03-23-08, 08:07 AM**

My feeling on the death penalty is that is just does not work very well. First, we do make many mistakes in our system and innocent people get convicted. Second, there is so much protection for the convicted that it takes many years and millions of dollars in extra money out of my pocket to complete the execution process. This offsets much of the cost of keeping people in prisoin for life. Third, true life sentences with hard labor would be more of a deterent than death for many criminals who feel they have nothing to lose and it would not give them repeated attention in the press when the execution date come around finally. Last, some may actually find remorse and personal redemption in prison and become effective tools for rehabilitating less serious offenders.

I was once a very strong supporter of the death penalty. I am pretty conservative, so I differ with many of that perspective on this one, but it seems to me that the more conservative thing to do in a system that is so often flawed is to opt for the punishment that can be rectified to some degree when the mistakes are found. Execution cannot be reversed. We are too imperfect as a society to emply that punishment, particularly when we have an alternative. Killing someone when you have no alternative is one thing, but when you have options, I see no reason for it.

**SteveCallas** · **03-23-08, 10:53 AM**

Quote:

thxgoon wrote:

This is where you get into the area of assumed risk. You go to a rock concert under the assumption that it could cause hearing damage. Duh, it's a rock concert. But you don't expect to lose your hearing standing in a public park... There's a big difference between kids watching tv and an explicit quote on the 4th page of a college newspaper.

Does the president of a university have to assume that somone on the staff of the newspaper that represents their university will use explicit language against the sitting president of the United States, potentially causing his business to lose money? I would have to imagine - prior to this incident taking place - that they felt comfortable in knowing that editors would have prevented that headline from ever being printed.

Quote:

Absolutely! If they are willing to accept that there will be consequences. Just as this editor will probably never find a job.

Fair enough.

Quote:

Here's another thought. It's against the law to drive a car without insurance. This is to protect others from you but it's also to keep rates affordable. Is this really that different than mandated health coverage?

I'd say so. If someone hits me, and they can't afford to pay for the damage they created (that I was innocent of any wrong doing in), I'm going to be screwed over twice.

Quote:

lcaillo wrote:

Third, true life sentences with hard labor would be more of a deterent than death for many criminals who feel they have nothing to lose and it would not give them repeated attention in the press when the execution date come around finally.

I am also against the death penalty. A true life sentence in some type of solitary confinement would be cheaper and more effective at discouraging murder.

**thxgoon** · **03-23-08, 12:07 PM**

Quote:

SteveCallas wrote:

Does the president of a university have to assume that somone on the staff of the newspaper that represents their university will use explicit language against the sitting president of the United States, potentially causing his business to lose money? I would have to imagine - prior to this incident taking place - that they felt comfortable in knowing that editors would have prevented that headline from ever being printed.

That's a good point lets look at this 2 ways. Pretend the newspaper printing this story happened to be the local commercial paper and the quote was the same but quoted by a CSU student. The implications would be the same for the most part but what could the president do in that case? I guess suing would be the option but again the free market works this out.

The other way... The university owns the newspaper, the president is the 'boss' of the university. He can do whatever he would want and the paper continues to operate as a free market entity. But a political faction pressuring censorship on a college campus is akin to real world political factions pressuring congress into drafting resolutions into law. This is why I ask, where do you draw the line and how do you decide which issues demand government intervention?

I'm more of an eye for and eye kind of guy for the death penalty however I do think that stronger punishments such as life in a labor camp would be a much better deterrent than death. I think the death penalty is a cheap ticket out of your sentence. Also, in a recent local event a man was set free after 10 years in prison after new DNA evidence proved his innocence. Can you imagine? As lcaillo said, death is permanent.

**OvalNut** · **03-23-08, 12:21 PM**

Quote:

SteveCallas wrote:

I am also against the death penalty. A true life sentence in some type of solitary confinement would be cheaper and more effective at discouraging murder.

That would certainly be fine with me as well. Life 24/7 in a concrete box big enough for a bed, sink and toilet. No TV, no workouts, no visitors.

Tim

**SteveCallas** · **03-23-08, 12:41 PM**

Quote:

thxgoon wrote:

Pretend the newspaper printing this story happened to be the local commercial paper and the quote was the same but quoted by a CSU student. The implications would be the same for the most part but what could the president do in that case? I guess suing would be the option but again the free market works this out.

If that were the case, the president of the university wouldn't really care. The onus is now on the local newspaper, a self contained business that doesn't have any affiliation with the university.

Quote:

The other way... The university owns the newspaper, the president is the 'boss' of the university. He can do whatever he would want and the paper continues to operate as a free market entity. But a political faction pressuring censorship on a college campus is akin to real world political factions pressuring congress into drafting resolutions into law. This is why I ask, where do you draw the line and how do you decide which issues demand government intervention?

If I own my own business, which I one day hope to (plan to), any employees of mine that express themselves in a way that represents my company are subject to getting those views edited through corporate, otherwise I can sue that employee for slander, misrepresentation, etc. If a political party pressures my company into taking sides on an issue (which happens all the time with Jesse Jackson and Sharpton, do a search on Jackson and Quaker Oats), it's entirely up to me whether I want to fold under the pressure or stand up for my convictions. Luckily we have enough of these talking heads shows where a company can expose the situation and the people who are behind them to not only make that group look bad, but also make their own company look great for standing up for what they believe in.

To bring it back to your university newspaper, they could have gone public all they wanted to and the majority of this nation would have still been against them

So it's a lose lose for all involved in that mess, thanks to that editor.

**thxgoon** · **03-25-08, 01:16 AM**

Wow, this thread kind of died. Hope we didn't kill it

Steve, I think we've found even ground. I'm curious though what you think in terms of the relationship between the gov stepping in over things like censorship but not healthcare and why you think the latter is not needed (and Richard if you're still around). I'm no advocate of all out socialized health care but I do think a level of regulation and possibly required minimum coverage should be implemented to keeps costs down, hospitals in business and people alive and well. As we've covered, I don't think you can relate healthcare to a free market system in the same way you can corn or peanuts or HDTV's, and IMHO a health care plan like Mrs Clinton's would never make it through congress but it may get the ball rolling along the right path. Do you think anything should be done in the current situation?

**Richard W. Haines** · **03-25-08, 08:18 AM**

thxgoon,

I'm still around but we're going in circles as I mentioned before.

**OvalNut** · **03-25-08, 10:03 AM**

Quote:

Richard W. Haines wrote:

I'll say it again, keep the federal government out of anything they are not Constitunionally mandated to handle. If you want them involved then do it procedurally with an amendment that the states would debate and vote on. If it doesn't work, then repeal it like Prohibition.

That is the crux of the matter. Keep this squarely in front of you like true north on your compass. Your path can vary dependent upon the terrain, but use this compass heading to get you to your destination, not lost in the woods.

Tim

Advertisement