CNN poll finds that majority of Americans do NOT think Bush has restricted civil liberties too much

[tony hardware 0]

And on top of that Tony is a lawyer! (at least he plays one when posting on the Geek board).

 

If I wanted to fake my profession, I would pick something far more glamorous. Like pirate ship captain.

[wiffleball 4,797]

1> Can he do this to an American citizen: Yes. -Or at least he says he can.

 

 

2> can you point out an instance of this happening? Truth is, we wouldn't know. He could literally pick you off the street and lock you away with you having no contact with the outside world whatsoever. There could be dozens like this right now - or none at all - we just don't know.

[Toro 3]

Jose Padilla.

 

A convert to Islam, he took the name Abdullah al-Muhajir when he moved to Egypt in 1998. He allegedly trained at al Qaeda's military camps in Afghanistan in 2000 after being recruited by a Yemeni man he met on a pilgrimage to Mecca, according to the government.

 

The Justice Department said last year that Padilla has told interrogators that before the September 11 terror attacks he met with al Qaeda's late military chief, Mohamed Atef, about the apartment bombing plot, and Abu Zubaydah, the terror group's accused operations chief who is now in custody, about stealing radioactive material to be used in a crude explosive device.

 

yeah, sounds like the Bush administration is running into innocent civilians homes and arresting them without cause and sending them to camps never to be seen again.

 

[davebg 0]

Yes, I'm your wife.

Well, since I posted this nobody (except for hoytdwow) has been able to post a single example of how their civil liberties have been curtailed, so couldn't the same be said of those who think that Bush has gone too far?

The italicized quote is what I was talking about (bolded is where I thought you were referring to the 39%). This is where I thought you were confusing things, because as has been stated, restated, and re-restated by myself and others in this thread, it doesn't matter to many of us that we ourselves have not been affected by restrictions in civil liberties, but rather that they have been restricted at all. It's a slippery slope argument, and it's a valid one, as history has shown that it is difficult to retrieve rights ceded to governments.

 

Sorry if I misinterpeted anything you said or meant to say. I didn't expect such catty responses, and didn't think it was a big deal. Just wanted to point out that one can think that Bush has gone too far in restricting civil liberties without being personally affected.

Frank said that anyone who thought that the govt should restrict civil liberties more should be "put out of their misery", which accounted for 25% of people who responded to the poll. In an effort to facilitate the discussion I pointed out that some people might think the same thing for the 39% who said Bush has gone too far.

 

If you notice, I have not really weighed in on this subject w/my own opinion. The closest I came was stating that there was some merit to the programs and how I wish that c*nt Lynne Stewart had these provisions applied to her.

[Cruzer 1,996]

just to recap:

 

polls (and the participants) suggesting bush should be impeached - legit.

 

polls suggesting something good for bush - bogus.

 

got it.

[davebg 0]

just to recap:

 

polls (and the participants) suggesting bush should be impeached - legit.

 

polls suggesting something good for bush - bogus.

 

got it.

Didn't you learn from Torrid's tenure here? Polls are only reliable sources of information if they agree w/your stance/opinion.

[parrot 789]

yeah, sounds like the Bush administration is running into innocent civilians homes and arresting them without cause and sending them to camps never to be seen again.

 

Why do you pretend to want to discuss things and then offer stupid rebuttals like this?

 

No one has claimed Padilla was an "innocent civilian", ass. He may very well be guilty. The point is he was locked away in military jails without any form of due process for over three years and was only charged with a crime when his case was on the verge of going to the SC, in which case the Bush administration might have found its hands tied on the issue. The charges that were finally brought against him only vaguely resemble the terrorist activities he was originally accused of. Five years after his initial incarceration he still hasn't been tried.

 

Whatever you think of his political or religious views, he is an American citizen and entitled to due process, with representation and a trial and all that stuff. That's called rule of law and it's one of the most bedrock principles of this country, and has served us pretty well for two-hundred and change years, sorry that you find it so distasteful.

 

 

 

 

just to recap:

 

polls (and the participants) suggesting bush should be impeached - legit.

 

polls suggesting something good for bush - bogus.

 

got it.

Great point. Where did anyone call the poll bogus?

[D_House 0]

just to recap:

 

polls (and the participants) suggesting bush should be impeached - legit.

 

polls suggesting something good for bush - bogus.

 

got it.

You obviously weren't paying close attention. Nobody attacked this poll. One guy said that Americans in general are stupid, and the OP agreed. That's about it.

 

HTH!

[ArnieBragg 2]

Whatever you think of his political or religious views, he is an American citizen and entitled to due process, with representation and a trial and all that stuff. That's called rule of law and it's one of the most bedrock principles of this country, and has served us pretty well for two-hundred and change years, sorry that you find it so distasteful.

 

This guy needs a ride to GITMO immediately!

[Cruzer 1,996]

You obviously weren't paying close attention. Nobody attacked this poll. One guy said that Americans in general are stupid, and the OP agreed. That's about it.

 

HTH!

i'll slow it down for you:

 

american are stupid when they disagree with the left. americans have a strong grasp of things when the agree with the left.

 

try to keep up and thanks for playing.

[davebg 0]

Whatever you think of his political or religious views, he is an American citizen and entitled to due process, with representation and a trial and all that stuff. That's called rule of law and it's one of the most bedrock principles of this country, and has served us pretty well for two-hundred and change years, sorry that you find it so distasteful.

Is it that he is entitled to due process b/c he's an American citizen or b/c his alleged crime happened on US soil.

 

That's one of the things I am a little unsure about. For example, if that American AQ guy who is in the videos gets captured in Pakistan (where he supposedly committed his crime of treason), then is he entitled to the same level of due process as if he committed those crimes on US soil? Is he entitled to a greater level of due process once he is brought onto US soil?

 

I'm not trying to pick a fight...I'm asking...seriously.

[parrot 789]

Is it that he is entitled to due process b/c he's an American citizen or b/c his alleged crime happened on US soil.

 

That's one of the things I am a little unsure about. For example, if that American AQ guy who is in the videos gets captured in Pakistan (where he supposedly committed his crime of treason), then is he entitled to the same level of due process as if he committed those crimes on US soil? Is he entitled to a greater level of due process once he is brought onto US soil?

 

I'm not trying to pick a fight...I'm asking...seriously.

Are you asking me my opionion, or what the law is? I'm no lawyer.

 

My knee-jerk libertarian opinion is that every American citizen is entitled to full due-process, but I do see a distinction between someone like Padilla - whose alleged crimes, as you say, all took place on American soil - and guys like Hamdi who actually went abroad and joined foreign forces fighting the U.S. There is much more legitimacy in labelling them "enemy combatants". It's not an easy question, but I'm generally inclined to err on the side of rights.

[D_House 0]

i'll slow it down for you:

 

american are stupid when they disagree with the left. americans have a strong grasp of things when the agree with the left.

 

try to keep up and thanks for playing.

Oh, I've been keeping up, I think you're confused because I lapped you, is all.

 

Anyways, way to make a leap in logic from one poster's comments. The funny thing about it is the OP agreed with those comments, and he is right-leaning!

 

If you want to make an intellectual contribution to this thread other than gross overgeneralizations, you may well earn the right to tell me to keep up!

[Toro 3]

Why do you pretend to want to discuss things and then offer stupid rebuttals like this?

 

No one has claimed Padilla was an "innocent civilian", ass. He may very well be guilty. The point is he was locked away in military jails without any form of due process for over three years and was only charged with a crime when his case was on the verge of going to the SC, in which case the Bush administration might have found its hands tied on the issue. The charges that were finally brought against him only vaguely resemble the terrorist activities he was originally accused of. Five years after his initial incarceration he still hasn't been tried.

 

Whatever you think of his political or religious views, he is an American citizen and entitled to due process, with representation and a trial and all that stuff. That's called rule of law and it's one of the most bedrock principles of this country, and has served us pretty well for two-hundred and change years, sorry that you find it so distasteful.

 

Well, if you are going to make a point that our civil liberties are being threatened, try not to use an ACTUAL terrorist and maybe your argument might carry a little semblance of weight, ass.

 

I love the part when you call what he did his "political and religious views". Sitting at Starbucks discussing religion and politics is having "political and religious views". This guy is a focking terrorist. His actions are that of a terrorist and he should be treated the same way. Are you saying that if Osama Bin Laden was born in LA and left the same day that he should have the right to a fair trial with all the constitutional protections?

 

Rule of laws change. It's called the government. As times change, they make new rules or change others. You look at the main principles of the country and the one that sticks out is that fact that our founding fathers wanted to ensure that we had the ability to change the constitution and laws as needs arose.

 

What were you expecting for this guy? To get picked up by the sheriff and put into county jail because he is american citizen? What kind of trial do you want? You want a trial of 12 by Joe Q. Public?

 

It's people like you that don't support this kind of common sense that allows child molesters to go free because of a technicality.

[davebg 0]

Are you asking me my opionion, or what the law is? I'm no lawyer.

 

My knee-jerk libertarian opinion is that every American citizen is entitled to full due-process, but I do see a distinction between someone like Padilla - whose alleged crimes, as you say, all took place on American soil - and guys like Hamdi who actually went abroad and joined foreign forces fighting the U.S. There is much more legitimacy in labelling them "enemy combatants". It's not an easy question, but I'm generally inclined to err on the side of rights.

I wanted your opinion and to know what the law was/is (if you or anyone else knew.)

 

My personal opinion...I am less of a libertarian (DUH), so I tend to fall on the other side, as I view it as a balance between safety and rights. I prefer more safety over more rights. As has been pointed out in this thread, one's own personal experience will have a big influence on where one stands in this debate. For me, working in NYC and living across the river during 9/11 makes we desire more safety. Also, my experience w/my POS dad makes me less sympathetic to the rights of accused criminals.

[akaoni 0]

I wanted your opinion and to know what the law was/is (if you or anyone else knew.)

 

My personal opinion...I am less of a libertarian (DUH), so I tend to fall on the other side, as I view it as a balance between safety and rights. I prefer more safety over more rights. As has been pointed out in this thread, one's own personal experience will have a big influence on where one stands in this debate. For me, working in NYC and living across the river during 9/11 makes we desire more safety. Also, my experience w/my POS dad makes me less sympathetic to the rights of accused criminals.

 

I think that you make a good point, and that the opinion you express is indicative of the feelings of many Americans. That said, when you live in a country governed by rule of law, once you begin making exceptions you run the danger of tyrany, the slippery slope you addressed. It is my opinion that no matter how repugnant the individual appears they are entitled to their day in court. As I mentioned earlier, even a self proclaimed member of Al Queda deserves to have a trial, espeically if they are an American citizen (we'll skip the arguments about foreign nationals for now). If we begin to alter our way of life and disregard the constitution in this regard than we've taken the step down the path to tyranny in my opinion. And if we walk down that path, I think that those who espouse anti-democratic sentiments, like those in Al Queda have won a significant battle. I won't be ruled by fear. I won't give up the ideals that this country was founded on, they're too important.

[parrot 789]

Well, if you are going to make a point that our civil liberties are being threatened, try not to use an ACTUAL terrorist and maybe your argument might carry a little semblance of weight, ass.

 

I love the part when you call what he did his "political and religious views". Sitting at Starbucks discussing religion and politics is having "political and religious views". This guy is a focking terrorist. His actions are that of a terrorist and he should be treated the same way. Are you saying that if Osama Bin Laden was born in LA and left the same day that he should have the right to a fair trial with all the constitutional protections?

 

Rule of laws change. It's called the government. As times change, they make new rules or change others. You look at the main principles of the country and the one that sticks out is that fact that our founding fathers wanted to ensure that we had the ability to change the constitution and laws as needs arose.

 

What were you expecting for this guy? To get picked up by the sheriff and put into county jail because he is american citizen? What kind of trial do you want? You want a trial of 12 by Joe Q. Public?

 

It's people like you that don't support this kind of common sense that allows child molesters to go free because of a technicality.

You really are focking dense. You asked if an "American citizen" had ever received the kind of treatment described so maybe you should start by trying to understand your own focking questions.

 

You're certain he's a terrorist even though he's never been tried. I guess you think presumption of innocence is just another one of those quaint ideas the founding fathers had that we need to kick to the curb nowadays. If he's such an obvious terrorist, how focking hard should it be to convict him and throw his ass in jail for a very long time, legitimately?

 

The founding fathers made it very difficult to change the Constitution because they realized reactionary dumbasses like yourself would be more than happy to carve it up every time a new problem came along.

[Uh-huh 0]

Judging by many of the responses so far in this thread, I can conclude many Americans simply don't have a clue about civil liberties, due process, constitutional law, or the Bill of Rights.

 

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

 

-- Attributed to Benjamin Franklin

[Greedo 13]

To your original question, dave, I'll give you 2 examples that impact me personally.

 

1) I can no longer play online poker for money (and follow along Mr. Hardware - banned does not equal regulated).

 

2) The books I check out at the library puts me on a government watch list.

 

There are many others that may not have impacted me personally at this point.

 

Finally, Mr. Hardware and any others that share his opinion on the ACLU - move to North Korea, Iran, or other countries without groups actively fighting to maintain your freedom. You've apparently forgotten that the people must be, and have a responsibility to be, constantly vigilant against the infringements of their government. Didn't they teach that where you got your supposed law degree?

[parrot 789]

I wanted your opinion and to know what the law was/is (if you or anyone else knew.)

 

My personal opinion...I am less of a libertarian (DUH), so I tend to fall on the other side, as I view it as a balance between safety and rights. I prefer more safety over more rights. As has been pointed out in this thread, one's own personal experience will have a big influence on where one stands in this debate. For me, working in NYC and living across the river during 9/11 makes we desire more safety. Also, my experience w/my POS dad makes me less sympathetic to the rights of accused criminals.

That's cool, I know a lot of people feel the same way. I don't. I think the long-term dangers of making too many concessions on the principles this country was founded on poses a greater risk to this country than a few whacked out extremists.

 

I'm all for security, and for prosecuting criminals (including terrorists) to the fullest extent of the law, but we do need to adhere to the law.

[tony hardware 0]

For example, if that American AQ guy who is in the videos gets captured in Pakistan (where he supposedly committed his crime of treason), then is he entitled to the same level of due process as if he committed those crimes on US soil? Is he entitled to a greater level of due process once he is brought onto US soil?

 

I wanted your opinion and to know what the law was/is (if you or anyone else knew.)

 

 

 

Those against whom penalizing action will be taken by the state are entitled to due process (essentially, notice of the allegation and opportunity to be heard to defend against the charge). This, of course, applies to all being charged within courts of law of the United States under criminal statutes, whether federal, state or local. However, those not citizens of the United States taken into custody and labelled "enemy combatants" or charged with crimes originating out of international criminal treaties are tried not in a US court of law, but military tribunals. The rules under military tribunals are different, especially with respect those non-citizen prisoners of war. These process owed to these individuals is governed by these international criminal treaties, not United States law. Therefore, if the US took custody of any of these individuals and charged them with a crime under any of the federal criminal statutes, then they would be entitled to due process. However, this has not occurred.

 

Whether that American AQ guy is entitled to due process depends on that with which he is being charged and under what body of law the charges lie. So I can't answer that, because I don't know and everything I've already said is pulled from the back shelf of my mind from a constitutional law class taken 5 years ago.

[Toro 3]

You really are focking dense. You asked if an "American citizen" had ever received the kind of treatment described so maybe you should start by trying to understand your own focking questions.

 

You're certain he's a terrorist even though he's never been tried. I guess you think presumption of innocence is just another one of those quaint ideas the founding fathers had that we need to kick to the curb nowadays. If he's such an obvious terrorist, how focking hard should it be to convict him and throw his ass in jail for a very long time, legitimately?

 

The founding fathers made it very difficult to change the Constitution because they realized reactionary dumbasses like yourself would be more than happy to carve it up every time a new problem came along.

 

If Osama Bin Laden was born in LA and left the same day (so technically he is a citizen), would he deserve the same rights as you and me?

[Brick Tamland 0]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/19/...in2020459.shtml

 

This guy was a Canadian citizen, but I don't think that should exclude him from this conversation.

[MDC 7,881]

Why stop at terrorists? Why not just have the cops do a random search of houses on any given night for the hell of it? I'm sure they'd find unregistered guns, drugs, etc. It may infringe on civil liberties but everybody would be much safer.

[parrot 789]

If Osama Bin Laden was born in LA and left the same day (so technically he is a citizen), would he deserve the same rights as you and me?

I guess you don't want to discuss Jose Padilla anymore and want to move on to extreme hypotheticals, no surprise there. I should probably just take your route on this and say "Show me where that's happened and we'll talk, until then it's not a problem..." but I'll try to answer it.

 

I've already said that I view those who actually leave the country in a slightly different light. I think it is more legitimate to label them as enemy combatants and try them through military tribunals or the like, but yes, they would be entitled some form of formal due process. Notice I said "entitled"; to borrow a line, "Deserve's got nothing to do with it", it's that the alternative is wholly unacceptable.

 

Now that I've answered that you can move on to my views on releasing child molestors or whatever other strawmen you care to dream up.

[davebg 0]

Judging by many of the responses so far in this thread, I can conclude many Americans simply don't have a clue about civil liberties, due process, constitutional law, or the Bill of Rights.

Or maybe some people think that for the past few decades we have seen continual increases in the rights of accused criminals and now they think that the pendulum should start to swing the other way.

 

The Constitution is deemed to be a "living document", which is to say that is is always changing and evolving w/the times. That does not necessarily mean that it should always be changing in one particular direction.

 

Furthemore, as to the quote that you posted from Ben Franklin, he wrote that at the very birth of what we now call civil liberties. So, it is not entirely unreasonable to imagine that he said that in reference to the fact that he could not imagine anyone in their right mind giving up the rights that were currently law, as he could not envision living w/fewer rights than were afforded to people at that time. If he saw what rights people were entitled to now he might not even agree w/his own quote.

 

For example, at that time in US history slavery was still the law of the land. Obviously that is not the case currently and going back to slavery is not something the majority of Americans would even consider to be an option. So, clearly, Americans during the time of Ben Franklin held a different set of values than we do today. For all we know he'd take one look at our multicultural society and be appalled.

[tony hardware 0]

Finally, Mr. Hardware and any others that share his opinion on the ACLU - move to North Korea, Iran, or other countries without groups actively fighting to maintain your freedom. You've apparently forgotten that the people must be, and have a responsibility to be, constantly vigilant against the infringements of their government. Didn't they teach that where you got your supposed law degree?

 

Fvck you. When was the last time the ACLU fought for ME (a straight white middle class male)? They don't fight to maintain freedom. I hate the ACLU because of the way they abuse their resources for ridiculous causes. Not all civil liberties are my civil liberties. I don't want to right to marry my bowling buddy.

 

The ACLU does not protect you or me, only select groups whose cause they choose to support that week. Its a dispicable organization rife with hypocrisy. I understand the origin of my civil liberties, what they are and what they mean. You won't see me crying "injustice" because I can't wear my "FVCK the ACLU" shirt to public school. I respect the exceptions to the our civil liberties established by the three branches of our government. This is why they're in place. When you and I start creating our own liberties, then its not a democratic society anymore, but anarchy.

 

One persons civil liberties are anothers disenfranchisement and the ACLU is lucky enough to choose which side they like more. No one is fighting to overturn racial preference programs. Where is the ACLU on that one? On the other side of the issue.

 

Here are the most recent "Action Alerts" for the ACLU:

Help Restore Net Neutrality

Massive innovation on the Internet since its creation is the result of pre-2005 Net Neutrality protection. Now recent government action threatens the long-term prospects for free speech on the Internet. Read more or take action right now! Youtube and google limit free speech on the internet. Go after them ACLU.

 

Stop Big Brother NSA Spying Bills

A federal judge has already ruled that the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program violates the Constitution and must stop. Stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law by taking action today! Read more or take action right now! Protect the terrorists? Fvck off ACLU.

 

Urge Congress to Stop Racial Profiling

Many Americans know about racial profiling -- the practice of using ethnicity or religion as the primary factor in deciding who to subject to law enforcement investigations. Racial profiling is ineffective and steeped in erroneous assumptions. Read more or take action right now! Stop Congress? Stop your local policemen. Better yet, leave the Country defenseless against its own treasonous parasitic inhabitants looking to kill their neighbors.

 

America Should Lead, Not Lag: Support Equal Rights

Despite the growing presence of women in virtually every realm of public life, discrimination is prevalent. A constitutional amendment is necessary to ensure that women are guaranteed the equality they deserve. Read more or take action right now! A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT JUST FOR WOMEN??????? THAT'S TRUE HYPOCRISY. THAT'S NOT EQUALITY, THATS PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT. We have one for women, it's called the 14th and 5th amendments, the same that are for everyone.

 

Fvck your ACLU.

[Isotopes 1]

How do google and youtube limit free speech?

[tony hardware 0]

How do google and youtube limit free speech?

 

Please see Davebg's post from two weeks ago regarding this topic. There's no way I'm rehashing it. The word content was in the title I think. It has a link.

 

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...&hl=content

[Toro 3]

I guess you don't want to discuss Jose Padilla anymore and want to move on to extreme hypotheticals, no surprise there. I should probably just take your route on this and say "Show me where that's happened and we'll talk, until then it's not a problem..." but I'll try to answer it.

 

I've already said that I view those who actually leave the country in a slightly different light. I think it is more legitimate to label them as enemy combatants and try them through military tribunals or the like, but yes, they would be entitled some form of formal due process. Notice I said "entitled"; to borrow a line, "Deserve's got nothing to do with it", it's that the alternative is wholly unacceptable.

 

Now that I've answered that you can move on to my views on releasing child molestors or whatever other strawmen you care to dream up.

 

I was trying to get you to admit that your "he's a citizen no matter what so he has rights no matter what" statements wouldn't hold up. I accomplished my goal.

 

Thanks.

[davebg 0]

Please see Davebg's post from two weeks ago regarding this topic. There's no way I'm rehashing it. The word content was in the title I think. It has a link.

 

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...&hl=content

Cliff's Notes version.

 

There were allegations about YouTube flagging a video critical of Dems as "adult" content. As I said in the thread, I had not been able to personally confirm that allegation.

 

The other part of it concerned Google and the way that searches for some things returned results that were clearly skewed against the right. Some people argued that Google did not do this intentionally; that it is just how their search algorithm works. Technically, that is true. However, Google is fully aware of how vulnerable their system can be to what is called "google bombing", whereby people can manipulate the results that will dispaly for particular searches. I was just reading an article today about a google bombing campaign currently underway by liberal bloggers. This is a known issue for Google and I just cannot give them a free pass for it. Frankly, I don't understand how they can claim objectivity when they are fully aware of such a vulnerability in their system. I guess the argument could be made that the vulnerability is available for anyone on either side of the fence to exploit, but how you can then tout the integrity of the search results w/a straight face is beyond me.

Fifty or so other Republican candidates have also been made targets in a sophisticated “Google bombing” campaign intended to game the search engine’s ranking algorithms. By flooding the Web with references to the candidates and repeatedly cross-linking to specific articles and sites on the Web, it is possible to take advantage of Google’s formula and force those articles to the top of the list of search results.

 

The ability to manipulate the search engine’s results has been demonstrated in the past. Searching for “miserable failure,” for example, produces the official Web site of President Bush.

 

“We don’t condone the practice of Google bombing, or any other action that seeks to affect the integrity of our search results,” said Ricardo Reyes, a Google spokesman. “A site’s ranking in Google’s search results is automatically determined by computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page’s relevance to a given query.”

 

The company’s faith in its system has produced a hands-off policy when it comes to correcting for the effects of Google bombs in the past. Over all, Google says, the integrity of the search product remains intact.

 

Writing in the company’s blog last year, Marissa Mayer, Google’s director of consumer Web products, suggested that pranks might be “distracting to some, but they don’t affect the overall quality of our search service, whose objectivity, as always, remains the core of our mission.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/26/us/polit...agewanted=print

[Isotopes 1]

Please see Davebg's post from two weeks ago regarding this topic. There's no way I'm rehashing it. The word content was in the title I think. It has a link.

 

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...&hl=content

 

I read through it and I didn't see where anyone made a case saying that controlling what is on YOUR website or software if limting someone else's free speech. If I put a web site and you don't agree with it should I have to put up your opinions? That is ridiculous. Google and YouTube do not own the internet, they are just web sites. Start your own if you don't like theirs.

[davebg 0]

I read through it and I didn't see where anyone made a case saying that controlling what is on YOUR website or software if limting someone else's free speech. If I put a web site and you don't agree with it should I have to put up your opinions? That is ridiculous. Google and YouTube do not own the internet, they are just web sites. Start your own if you don't like theirs.

There is a difference between slanting the coverage on say Foxnews.com, which produces itw own content and a site like Google or YouTube who act more as tools for people to gather information and make up their own minds.

 

It's a subtle difference, but it is there.

[tony hardware 0]

I read through it and I didn't see where anyone made a case saying that controlling what is on YOUR website or software if limting someone else's free speech. If I put a web site and you don't agree with it should I have to put up your opinions? That is ridiculous. Google and YouTube do not own the internet, they are just web sites. Start your own if you don't like theirs.

 

Thanks asswipe. You're two weeks late for that debate, but I can't resist. Where do 90% of kids get their news and information? Goodle and youtube. What kid do you know subscribes to the Wall Street Journal or reads The Chicago Tribune? None. It bothers me because, all though I'm smart enough to formulate my own opinions, an entire generation of kids will grow up believing what they read and hear on Youtube and google only to have it later reinforced in college by their liberal professors. MTV is equally at fault for portraying current events the way they do. Not every child can overcome that kind of bias. Every child should be presented with information on both sides of the issues so that they can formulate their own opinions. Otherwise, they're not learning, they're just listening. Regardless of who you are or your beliefs, this is a troubling concern. Children should be informed, not force fed.

[Toro 3]

Thanks asswipe. You're two weeks late for that debate, but I can't resist. Where do 90% of kids get their news and information? Goodle and youtube. What kid do you know subscribes to the Wall Street Journal or reads The Chicago Tribune? None. It bothers me because, all though I'm smart enough to formulate my own opinions, an entire generation of kids will grow up believing what they read and hear on Youtube and google only to have it later reinforced in college by their liberal professors. MTV is equally at fault for portraying current events the way they do. Not every child can overcome that kind of bias. Every child should be presented with information on both sides of the issues so that they can formulate their own opinions. Otherwise, they're not learning, they're just listening. Regardless of who you are or your beliefs, this is a troubling concern. Children should be informed, not force fed.

 

Sounds like a parenting issue to me.

[Uh-huh 0]

Or maybe some people think that for the past few decades we have seen continual increases in the rights of accused criminals and now they think that the pendulum should start to swing the other way.

 

The Constitution is deemed to be a "living document", which is to say that is is always changing and evolving w/the times. That does not necessarily mean that it should always be changing in one particular direction.

 

Furthemore, as to the quote that you posted from Ben Franklin, he wrote that at the very birth of what we now call civil liberties. So, it is not entirely unreasonable to imagine that he said that in reference to the fact that he could not imagine anyone in their right mind giving up the rights that were currently law, as he could not envision living w/fewer rights than were afforded to people at that time. If he saw what rights people were entitled to now he might not even agree w/his own quote.

 

For example, at that time in US history slavery was still the law of the land. Obviously that is not the case currently and going back to slavery is not something the majority of Americans would even consider to be an option. So, clearly, Americans during the time of Ben Franklin held a different set of values than we do today. For all we know he'd take one look at our multicultural society and be appalled.

 

Or possibly those same people would like to sleep better at night thinking the government is taking care of them and their own. It's funny how the same people who b!tch about big government also want the same government to take care of their security by taking any measures government officials think necessary. Can't have it both ways.

 

The Constitution is a living document that has an accepted way of being changed, called an amendment. If the times change, you can change the Constitution. Which by the way is how we abolished slavery via the 13th Amendment. So if the people of the United States want to abrogate their civil liberties in favor of security, there is a mechanism in place to do so. Allowing the Feds to encroach on our established civil liberties by fiat is not that mechanism.

 

Good ol' Ben's words are timeless and always appropriate. If you value your own hide more than the liberties you have a right too, then you are a coward and don't deserve freedom or security.

[tony hardware 0]

Sounds like a parenting issue to me.

 

Yes, parents need to counter the effects of controlled distribution of partisan or biased information. It is up to the parents to inform their children impartially as to both sides of the issues. BTW, when was the last time you sat down with your 15 year old son and read him the editorial sections from both The Nation and The Weekly Standard or National Review? And WHEN was the last time he watched MTV or Youtube? That's what I thought.

[Toro 3]

Yes, parents need to counter the effects of controlled distribution of partisan or biased information. It is up to the parents to inform their children impartially as to both sides of the issues. BTW, when was the last time you sat down with your 15 year old son and read him the editorial sections from both The Nation and The Weekly Standard or National Review? And WHEN was the last time he watched MTV or Youtube? That's what I thought.

 

So now the gov't is responsible for me being a bad parent?

 

There goes my civil liberties.

[tony hardware 0]

So now the gov't is responsible for me being a bad parent?

 

There goes my civil liberties.

 

No, a parent is responsible for being a bad parent. (I don't see how you could conclude from my post that I was suggesting that the government makes individuals bad parents.)

[D_House 0]

Yes, parents need to counter the effects of controlled distribution of partisan or biased information. It is up to the parents to inform their children impartially as to both sides of the issues. BTW, when was the last time you sat down with your 15 year old son and read him the editorial sections from both The Nation and The Weekly Standard or National Review? And WHEN was the last time he watched MTV or Youtube? That's what I thought.

Do you seriously believe that YouTube is biased? Yes, it has videos that videos that support one side of an issue, like for example, the MJ Fox-embryonic stem cell video... But it also has a video that present the opposite side of that very same issue, in fact, it was posted on this board, by, oh... who was it?