Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dakota
When one resorts to character attacks, one obviously has no response to the actual issue at hand or is conceding the debate on the issues. Most modern politicians are very good at this kind of "debate" and the Clinton Administration raised it to a high art form.
|
Tom,
Perhaps I was being too subtle and that’s what caused you to miss the point. Jefferson, revered and quoted earlier as the person who helped define these great concepts of freedom and privacy in our Constitution, lived in a time when it was perfectly acceptable for him to own slaves. (It’s not character assignation if it’s true). Obviously a despicable and abhorrent concept by today’s standards and clearly interpreted as Unconstitutional. The point is times change, and the interpretation of the Constitution changes based on societies values at the time.
Technology has made it possible to access all kinds of public information today that wasn’t even dreamed of 20 years ago. THAT DOESN’T LESSON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PEOPLE WHO ACCESSS THIS INFORMATION TO DO THE RIGHT THING! But to say no one should have access to that data is like saying we should ban certain books, or not have security cameras, or not xray people’s private luggage. You have the freedom of speech, but it doesn’t give you the right to scream fire in a crowded theatre. You have the right of privacy, but it doesn’t supersede the publics’ right to security or the protection of a child.