While posting some long remarks in the ACLU Sues New York City, Over random bag searches thread and remembering a program I saw last night on Paula Zahn on CNN PAULA ZAHN NOW - Safe at Home? got me thinking of this topic. There was a gentleman that answered he had no problem with the random searches in the NY transit system as long as it didn't inconvenience him.

N.Y., N.J. commuters OK with bag searches



So some of you probably heard of the TSA Trusted Traveler program that they are working on which if you give up information thru a more deep background check you could get thru the airline gates quicker. Sounds great right? But what are people giving up for convenience? In order to even qualify you would to need to submit to having your iris's scanned, fingerprints taken and undergo a government background check. Is it sort of sounding like the FBI run under J. Edgar Hoover again?

TSA’s ‘Trusted Traveler Program’ Heralds Big brother

Airline pushes for 'trusted traveler' program

Questions:

What Civil Rights are you willing to give up for safety or convenience?

What Civil Rights would you not be willing to give up ever?
I'll post my thoughts later on.

What Civil Rights are you willing to give up for safety or convenience?

None- not one. Those that think get either from giving them up are deluding themselves

What Civil Rights would you not be willing to give up ever?

The one that is eroding the fastest (though I rate them all equally) is freedom to critisize this administration. To critisize this administration and it's policies has become, as LordHelmet pointed out- characterized as "treasonous"

What Civil Rights are you willing to give up for safety or convenience?

I would favor a change in freedom of speech laws. I think the original intent was to allow us to disagree with political leaders, but has been expanded to allow any idiot to offend the majority in the name of art, incite to riot and terrorism, abuse those who believe differently, etc. Some of these "expanded" aspects, such as adult porn, could still be done, but in a less public way. Some others should be stepped on, hard, and relentlessly.
I would also modify freedom of religion to make it very clear that we also have freedom from religion, and that religions should tend to their own flocks instead of sticking their noses into the doings of others.

What Civil Rights would you not be willing to give up ever?

Pretty much all the rest of them

Possibly the greatest civil rights fighter of our time regarding free speech is larry flynt though bill- remember, he was sued for slamming Jerry Falwell, and that case went all the way to the supreme court- yes, free speech includes lot's of things- including the stuff that "offends" the majority- or rather, ESPECIALLY stuff that offends the majority.

The interesting part you left out is- you have total freedom NOT to partake in the bad stuff- you simply don't have to download porn or buy a Hustler.

That too is a protected form or free speech- the ability to change the channel, turn off the radio, not buy the book. When they force you to read it or view it, I will change my argument.

Personally, I would not give up any of my freedoms easily. Though, I do share personal information all the time because I want something. For example, I give all sorts of personal information to some online shopping sites because I choose to purchase things there. For that matter I gave a fair amount of information to this site because I wanted to participate here, and alot more when I choose to Donate to the site. I have no problem with there being options out there for those would would rather give up some privacy then wait in long lines in the airport, anymore then I have a problem with people having the ability to share personal information with a company so they can make an online purchase rather then run to the store. To each their own.

I, like everyone else, do have to balance some freedoms against others however. I may have a right to free speech, but I do not have a right to suffer no consequences from that speech outside of the government.

For example. When I was in a union, if my political views would have become known, I would have found myself blackballed (I know this for a fact because the union has a history of doing it to others, and I am a friend of one such person). As it was, I got into an argument once with my shop stewart about how, at that particular moment, the union was making it harder, not easier for me to make a living (making me leave a work site because store happened to be on the "Do not patronize" list, even though, with no other work available, I as a piece-worker would earn nothing for the day). For the next year, I found myself seen by him and the union people above him as anti-union. That eventually lead to me not having any union support on an issue where I was fighting my company to pay me over $2000.00 owed to me. I won that fight, without the union, and consequently left both that job and the union for better opportunities and more personal freedom.

Freedoms to do something does not protect you from the freedom of others to respond to what you did. This is why I, like many others, use a name other then my own when talking politics online for example.

Now, when it comes to programs like the one referenced above, I do not have a problem with it so long as peoples participation is not mandatory, or coerced. Having to wait in line for a security check, because you choose not to participate is no coercion. Having to pay a fee because you are not participating would be (if fees need to be collected to cover security costs then let those who want to participate in this program pay them).

The argument that not participating results in higher costs for security check points is ridiculous. Having been in the business, I can tell you that it is NOT cheap to run background checks, record checks, and the like. Not to mention to costs of storing, maintaining and updating the data. It would be cheaper to have people go through the current system then it would be for them to participate in this program. So, if revenues are needed to offset the cost of Airport security, it should be those that choose to sign up with this program who should pay them.

Yes, I have those options, and I use them a lot.
But, I am a very mature adult, aka OLD, and therefore I am in more control of myself and my thinking than I used to be.
I wonder, tho, who protects our children? They don't have the wisdom to know the pitfalls of going down some paths, and being children are going to try to do many things we as parents warn them against.
Certainly the young middle class women who fell prey to Charles Manson's persuasive words could have used some protection.
How about those who followed Jim Jones and drank the purple kool-aid?
There are many other examples, as you well know from your own years of watching the news.
Freedom of Speech has been used as a license to steal, corrupt, manipulate, distort, etc. I would like to see serious consequences for those who purposely abuse this freedom to spread untruths for personal, financial, or political gain.
A friend taught me that altho we "have all kinds", we don't necessarily need all kinds. Some people are so far gone that isolating them from the public is the least we should do. Same goes for some ideas that are not new, just re-worded to appear as new, and are used for less than honorable intentions.
There should be required classed in High School that show how some misguided idiots have destroyed the lives of others using freedom of speech. I would balance that with examples of how the establishment has often, in their ignorance, tried to impede progress. Such a class would serve to warn them that not all that is seen as good is good, and likewise the bad.
I think that, in some ways, freedom of speech has been used to lead us down the primrose path in the direction of destruction. Probably not as often as when some political leaders use control of the media to lead their country to destruction, but it is clear that ignorance of the masses is a tool of the corrupt.
Perhaps better education would help minimize the frequency of that kind of thing.
I can, and have, taught my children to be suspect of the motives of those behind "new ideas" that run counter to what has served as good judgement for so many years. If they appear to have selfish motives, then be wary of accepting the ideas too quickly.
I suspect that too many of our children are too ignorant and gullible to the extent that the charlatans among us have easy pickings.

Who protects the children? How about THEIR PARENTS? Don't want your kids looking at porn on the computer? OK, then either invest in a "net-nanny" type program and pay for the updates or lock up the computer and only let your children use it under your direct supervision. Same holds true for the TV. Use your V-Chip, use your cable/SAT box parental controls, or secure the TV so that it can only be used when you're supervising the watching. The "for the children" argument is not a reasonable excuse to take away the freedoms of other adults IMHO. As a parent, I will take care of my child, my way, rather then try to take away the rights of everyone else just to make my parenting easier.



Who's untruths? For example. Some might call this or that a lie or an untruth. Others might call it faith. People need to be free to make their own choices. As for holding those accountable for using "untruths" for personal gain, we do have fraud laws.

There is a personal responsiblity issue here as well. Often times people get ripped-off because they had to act on the deal, "it was just too good to be true". Well they were right. If someone comes to you and asks for 5,000.00 to hold why you cash in their multi-million dollar lotto ticket because they are illegally in America and don't want to be deported, it IS too good to be true. As a matter of fact it is a very old con. Yet, even with news coverage of these sorts of things people still fall for it everyday. Now, this is fraud, and is actionable under criminal law. But it is also just plain dumb and the victim needs to accept the fact that some of the responsiblity for this rests with their own greed.

I agree with your basic stance overlandsailor about giving up information to public entities for a particular service. I do have a problem when the entity is the government requiring an ordinary citizen to give up more information then everyone else to receive a particular benefit, such as the Trusted Traveler Program. Besides there being several problems that I could think off the top of my head like.

For instance, a homegrown terrorist with no prior history gets excepted into this program, which means unless at the special security gate no bells go off he is less scrutinized because he is in the trusted traveler program.

If this brainchild is a great success and is excepted by the public and more and more people get into the program, isn't giving up more and more information without really thinking about the ramifications a problem? Or worse the government decides for the sake of safety all passengers will have to go thru the steps you need to inorder to get excepted into the traveler program.

I do have problems with giving information to data clearinghouses because as some news reports have shown the information can and does get abused from time to time.

All you have to do is look at the social security number everyone has, it was never intended to be used the ways it is being used to day, with every transaction requiring at some point or another its use unless you only use paper money and store it under your bed.

Now to take off my tin-foil hat I am not some wingnut conspiracy theorist running around. Its just I see people not questioning why you have to give up certain rights all the time. Case in point if alot of which is in the Patriot Act already does exist to some degree or another why is their a need to have the Patriot Act instead of updating the existing laws? My fear is we as a society are not questioning things because we are willing to give up certain ones for either perceived safety or convenience, but not remembering the recent past or just plain history.

While a couple of the rights I am not incomplete agreement with (amendment 2) because what they called firemarms to what we call them is completely different, I am not willing to let someone take them away from me so easily though. One could make an argument that what we are willing to do with the Trusted Traveler Program with the government background checks is actually giving up our right of unreasonable search and seizure in reverse by the people actually giving up their right for convenience

THE BILL OF RIGHTS

UConn Server May Have Been Breached - Released: June 24, 2005

J. Edgar Hoover Back at the 'New' FBI

The ChoicePoint Data Security Breach: What It Means for You, and How to Find Out What ChoicePoint Knows about You

My Social Security Number: How Secure Is It?

John Edgar Hoover

Do you always attack other's answers that deviate from your own personal bias in such a venomous way? Did I accuse you or someone else of being a porn freak? I expressed my opinion honestly, and am not seeking an argument with someone who only thinks he knows what I am thinking. The category is casual conservation, so lighten up, please.
Yes we have fraud laws, and the penalties are usually too small related to the damage done. Don't you think that there are certain segments of society, especially the less able, that need to be protected from the smooth tongued ones among us? Ever see a lawyer steal from a widow and get away with it? How about the liars who misrepresent themselves/services/products and rip off those less familiar with fraudulent schemes? Should we protect victims or the criminals whose victims are undereducated or gullible? And as for children, some of them need protection from their own parents.
I am not a total believer in the "takes a village to raise a child" concept, but I don't turn a blind eye when I see someone being victimized either. And if we can't get help from the village in protecting our children, at least don't help the victimizers by pretending that we are protecting their rights. They have no right to power, money, or whatever that is earned by screwing over others. That last sentence may not be completely true, seems a lot of lawyers think they do have that right.
I am especially offended when my tax dollars get used to protect the criminals, support offensive "art", or to have the truth bent in order to get some politician elected. Politicians caught in blatant lies should be required to step down and have new elections until we can find one who is good enough to get elected without telling lies about himself or his opponent.
To me, there just isn't that much ambiguity in what is true or untrue, faith/religion issues aside. Problem is, we are inundated with so much propaganda that most of us are unable to determine the truth. Perhaps the quantity of free speech should be limited. You get to have your say, then after a while you have to shut up about it, instead of using rich people's money to tell us the same lies repeatedly until it starts to sound true.
However, you are entitled to your own opinion.

The point is this Bill- one of the tenents of old style conservatism that many used to prescribe to is personal responsibility- those folks that chose to join Charles Manson or Jim Jones were adults (that some dragged thier kids too as well, and later, we attacked the branch davidians on that mind set, WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN)- if you are easily brainwashed, well, then, perhaps we should outlaw recruiters and TV commercials and such? LOL

Nope- when you are 18- be responsible for yourself or face the consequences, period. It is the price of living in a free society.

I will agree with that when the schools in this country starts providing an education that leaves our children capable of defending themselves against the type of people I have been talking about. The way it is now, it is too easy to drop out of school, or even finish high school without learning much. You might say that it makes recruiting far easier for the military if we have a large supply of poorly educated citizens. Who made that comment about "low hanging fruit"? And what of the ethics of major banks underwriting predatory lending? How low can this kind of thing go and still be made acceptable in our society?
I don't believe that members of a civilized society should be free to prey on those who have been handicapped whether by our education system or any other means. Or does being a fool mean that you are allowed to be victimized?
It isn't only conservatives who allow this kind of predation. Any person of any political or religious persuasion can be greedy and dishonest. I know how you feel about corporate types. How do they get away with so much lying? We let them.
I suggest that the higher they are, the more damage they can do, thus the higher the standards they should be held to.
Or should we expand our bill of rights to include predation as long as it is done only with words, and without physical harm? I am sure that the recent bunch of corporate types that are now headed for prison would like that. They already think that they are entitled to wealth no matter how unethical they have to be to get it.
There is precious little truth being offered to us these days, last thing I want is more abusing of our freedom of speech to take what little we have away from us.
I, too, appreciate honesty and forthrightness....

1. None. I suppose I could make a slippery slope style argument here, but the fact is is that right violations aren't necessary. America is so strong in its foundation, (i.e. The Bill of Rights), that there is no other necessary actions to defeat evil than the ones we have. The guilty will usually be found guilty, the innocent will usually be found innocent. Rather than the innocent are guilty and the guilty are innocent (the "good" version of Iraq that some people, for some reason, didn't care to disturb). I (probably because I am 15) scoff when I see that people are shot while a few people watch are tried over about a year, given the death penalty, then take another 20 years with the appeals. I suppose that no brightline exists for when something is "sure" or not, although I suppose you could determine that someone shooting someone else while 4 other people and a camera watched is pretty sure.

2. All. Pretty much the converse of the first, when you refer to people like me.

But once again Bill- and I don't think we are so far apart here- but it is not the education systems fault for not educating our children- it is the parents. Why is it that conservatives are so insistant on personal responsibility on one hand and then so quick to blame others on the other? LOL

I agree there is precious little truth being told- but this has always been true throughout the ages- it is up to parents to educate thier children, and adults to control thier behavior- not the goverments.

We decry goverment regulations on one hand, and then blame the goverment and teachers for moral decay.

i am not afraid of a terrorist attack whatsoever, even when I am near a "soft target" LOL- I fear my liberties being eroded from within.

Osama Bin Laden is not a real threat to this country- conservatives that use his attack as an excuse to erode our liberties is a threat to this country and our ideals. I wonder sometimes who really hates our freedoms.

Please feel free to specifically point out the "Venomous" comments in my posting. All I did was "express my opinion" which, at least partially, seems to run counter to yours. I have no idea what it is you found offensive. Also, did this "porn freak" thing come from?



Good point, there are areas where the law needs to be improved. But what of the flip side? I work in the Alarm industry. There is a contract one signs when getting an alarm. Companies have gone to the extreme of printing the fact that it is a _____ year contract for $_____ a month in oversized bold type directly above the signature line. Yet people still fight the contract in court claiming they did not know the specifics. We need balance here. Con games and fraud need to be prosecuted, and yes, as you pointed out, in some cases the penalties should be harsher. However, people also need to be held accountable for what they sign and agree too. I do not think that we should be spending tax payer dollars to protect people from contracts they did not bother to read before signing. Sometimes it is fraud, other times it is simple laziness.



Well, if this rises to the level of neglect or abuse then that is where we call in people like the Department of Family Services (DFS) and let the law do it's job. However, if it is less then that, then we have need to defer to the rights of the parents to raise their children as they see fit. If we do not, then what is to stop those who feel with our parenting is too strict, from forcing us to raise our children their way?



More often then not, at least depending on how you look at it, people earn their fortune by "screwing over others". Take Bill Gates and windows for example. In the eyes of some, he "screwed over" Xerox by taking their idea. In the eyes of others, he was brilliant in that he saw the value in what Xerox created even though the executives of Xerox did not. I agree that when someone commits fraud, they need to be prosecuted. I just think we need to consider what it is we describe as fraud.



Well, again, it depends on your definitions here. Innocent until proven guilty is the core of our legal system (outside of tax court). I am curious about what you mean by "protecting criminals".

As for Art. Hey, personally I think it is a waste of federal resources to support any art, period. Let private benefactors handle that. However, when choosing to fight the support of "offense art" we run into the problem of who defines what as offensive. Who's standards are we to use? For example, there are those in this country who are offended by the US Flag. Obviously, this is not the definition of offensive we would want to use.

And I agree with you about the politicians. However, if we forced every politician who has been caught in a lie out of office Washington would become a Ghost town. Until relatively recently, if a political was caught in a lie, a fraud, etc they were forced to step down because of their conscience, sense of duty, peer pressure, public outcry, etc. Now, it seems like none of these things apply anymore. Catch a political in the wrong, he just calls the accusers partisan hacks of the other side and begins to wage a public relations war using their own partisan hacks.



It's an interesting idea. But then, that is not how our constitutional protections work. I would rather have all sides have unlimited access then place some sort of restriction on speech. Doing so would inevitably be abused. Those with more yes men and money would be able to make the most noise as still be able to say what they have to say often enough for people to believe it by using yes man after yes man as the individual speaker. Meanwhile, regular Americans like you and find our own ability to fight the propaganda restricted by this new law because of our limited resources. In other words, we would be in the same boat we are in now, but the powers that be would have the added bonus of being able to use the power of the law against us.



As are you, and everyone else in America. And we are all entitled to express that opinion as often as we like thanks to the bill of rights. What we are NOT entitled to is freedom from consequences the come from other regular people who heard what we have to say. If you exercise your right to free speech, you should do so, knowing that others might disagree, and call you out, or choose not to shop at your store anymore, etc.

Overland Sailor wrote:




Context for this quote: Bill55AZ's expressed his view that a person's "civil right" to have access to any number of things including pornographic material on TV or the internet should be limited because of concerns for children in our society. OS responded in the quote above that it is solely the parents responsibility to supervise what their children see on tv or the internet.

I vehemently disagree. The topic of the thread asks what civil rights would I be willing to give up. I would give up the "right" to see unlimited filth on tv and the internet. And to anyone raising a slippery slope argument on this point a la Sean Hannity -- that political viewpoints come next, I say : Nonsense. The SCOTUS has defined pornographic material to be material that appeals only to a "prurient" interest. Or, in laymans terms: We know it when we see it.

As a society we have an obligation to our children to provide not just familial reinforcement of good values, but also communal reinforcement.

A person can invest in all the "net-nanny" type programs or V-Chips out there, or lock up the computer/TV for that matter-- but it cannot achieve the same protection or send the same message to our children that a statement from the community itself could achieve through broad restrictions. In this sense, it does take a village . . . .

Protecting an individual's access to pornography on the internet is absolutely a "civil right" that I would be willing to give up. And more than than, such access should not be viewed as a "civil right" at all because, treating it as such, eliminates our ability as a society to speak out and form the values of our children as a whole.

I vehemently disagree. The topic of the thread asks what civil rights would I be willing to give up. I would give up not one single ity bitty bit.
Sorry Hayley, but I am not interested in you,or anyone else deciding my moralty for me. In fact I would have to go out of my way to subvert, corrupt, spindle and mutilate any attempts to do so. Besides Prohibition doesn't work--never would never will. Someday enough people might actually figure that out and stop ruining the lives of people for victimless crimes and put and end to much misery and entrapment.
I will decide for myself what is right for my children and when they move out and are independent unto themselves they can then go their own way--regardless of my opinion on their choices.
As for
Isn't that the question? Why should your morality supercede mine? Because the majority--or the "mob"--has decided that they can take away my freedom if I dare walk my own path?
As long as my choices do not harm anyone else no other person should have even the tiniest say in how I act and believe.
In fact I say this is how this country was supposed to be until busybodies and their lawyers and bought and paid for law enforcement decided they had the right to subvert Liberty to make--read that as force--others to submit to their whims and superstitions.

I will not be held responsible for the failures of other parents to teach any common sense or values to their brats. I make sure my children do not inflict themselves on others and demand the same.

You seem the type Hayley to have a well mannered and intelligent daughter who wouldn't cause me problems, I guarantee you mine would treat you respectfully--so why don't we leave it at that and you do it your way and I will do it mine. Surprisingly enough Hayley it will probably work out beautifully.




Well as the originator of the Best Topic General Political Debate: Slippery Slope Please let me say that I have no doubts as to where such restrictions would lead. I will always remember the first time I saw Cirque du Soleil. It was on a televison at a best buy in Knoxville. I was absolutely staggered by the beauty of the performance--not to mention the brilliance. However the lady behind was very loudly offended that such trash was out there for children to see.

I will never let such people decide anything for me.

Let them run background checks, take DNA samples, etc. People are getting a little ridiculous when it comes the CIA knowing to which colllege they went-no harm in it.
No personal searches, as they are humiliating and the threat of terrorism is simply not real enough to give this (the freedom) up, there were only a few terrorist attacks, and its not because terrorists didn't want to do more, it is because they couldn't.

None; and I want a Privacy Amendment to the Constitution.

I would rather die in a Terrorist attack than even talk to a civil servant. What ever happened to “Give me liberty or give me death” or “Better dead than Red”?

Life is full of risks, and no matter how many laws get passed or government red-tape gets dispensed to bind us; people are still going to die. Better to die free.

Ok, how is taking a DNA sample less intrusive than a personal search? "Sir, we're going to take this cotton swab and swab the roof of your mouth. Thank you."

I have no idea why you are mentioning the CIA and colleges. All the CIA or anyone has to do is go online and search for your name.

And you mention that terrorists stopped attacking because they didn't have the ability to. Why was this so? Was it because they couldn't feel that their dogmas were worth backing and couldn't find the motivation? Ummm. No... I think it may have been a result of these evil searches you refer to.

[sarcasm]Fine. I give up all my beliefs. We'll follow your course. No more searches at airports. No more searches of felons when we think they may have guns or drugs. Phstt. No purpose. Violatin' my civil rights.[/sarcasm]

Your post is full of illogical policies and contradictions.

How many years between the two WTC attacks?

These people think in decades. To think that they are not attacking the homeland because of anything we are doing, is to ignore the future for short term political posturing.

While we may have disrupted them short term; in letting bin Laden escape at Tora Bora we have allowed them to escape underground where they are harder to find.

By wasting resources training them in Iraq, we aid them doubly.

Illogical Policy.

The sad thing is I really don't believe these searches are doing anything at all to stop terrorism. I think that Homeland Security is the Joke-iest department on the planet and the freshest barrel of salted pork in town. I mean, come on! There are so many ways to cause terror and destruction, its just an unstoppable matter of creativity. It's a million-dollar game of wack-a-mole. They hit us through the airports, here comes our slow, cumbersome security clampdown at the airports. Then the subways, alright, here comes the slow, cumbersome clampdown on the NYC transit system. Look, if I really thought that there was an imminent immediate threat of terrorism that could be stopped by a bag search -- while idealogically opposed to it (I'm down with that give me liberty/death bit)-- I'd give that up for a breif time. This is especially true if I a.) knew it would actually make someone somewhere safer, b.) was just a temporary measure.
But this is ridiculous. Homeland security's job is to hype the threat of terrorism and make us feel like they are keeping us safe- to make up for the fact that they are simply unable to truly anticipate the direction of terrorism. I can't imagine they are possibly keeping us any safer, just scareder. They say, "The terror alert level is ____ for the upcoming holiday," and make a few moves over labor day. "We are worried about Nuclear Reactors," then they guard the Nuclear Reactors. They make up the threat, then they do something about it. Meanwhile, any halfway intelligent person could, in the time it takes CNN to get a crew to cover the bag searches in New York, come up with a new way to attack us. It isn't hard. Especially when your enemy walks around bragging about how safe the airports are- AFTER september 11th. I feel like every precaution they make is based on a silly presumption or an area where they have already failed. They are a reactionary bunch that checks shoes at airports, and once they are truly tested, I deeply fear they will perform badly.
Given leadership like this, Homeland Security Money should just be put to use building lightning rods across the country to minimize the far greater chance of getting hit by lightning.

What Civil Rights are you willing to give up for safety or convenience?

None. Not a one. No amount of "safety" or "convenience" is worth losing civil rights.

What Civil Rights would you not be willing to give up ever?

Any of them. Indeed, I would like to see even more civil rights explicitly and constitutionally secured. Like the absolute right to privacy (which is implied by every amendment in the Bill of Rights and the entire Declaration of Independence - though that doesn't seem to be enough for some people ), the absolute right to bear arms, the absolute right to do whatever one wants with one's own body - indeed, the absolute right to do anything that does not directly infringe on the rights of any other citizen. Curbing any individual rights is tyranny - and tyranny, even in the name of "safety" or "convenience" or "family values" or "community standards" or "majority opinion" or "pruriance" or anything else - be damned. Anyone imposing their will, their opinions, their beliefs, or their fears on anyone else, except where demonstrable harm is done to others, has no place whatsoever in an allegedly free society.