Just the excerpt you have there reads to me as him addressing the fact that the more a magazine or newspaper relies on advertising, the more it's content is going to be controlled by the advertisers.
If the magazine has a great story it knows would cause major advertisers to pull from it's magazine in protest and they are the magazines only income, it's probably not going to publish the story.
However, the more a magazine or newspaper relies on pay directly from readers, the bigger the risks it can on it's advertisers. If its story is really good and results in more readership and thus more income the readers regularly it can take bigger risks on stories for the benefit of the readers.
It leaves the magazine more in control of the moral compass of it's own content as well as better able to react to what the reader's want. Thus, a better paper all around.
It seems to me you're both right, in that advertising can/does control too much of the content of most of our media, to it's detriment and that magazines/newspapers/etc could try to stick their necks out and come up with new ways of getting revenue that don't involve just the two options he spoke of.
"In this instance, the rule about "no cameras or recording devices in locker rooms" is to maintain privacy. Even though the rule was violated in this circumstance, the end result was the protection of personal privacy for the students, as well as the protection of their personal items.
Punishing the students in any way, even if it's a simple "don't take pictures", does not further the goal, it only protects the rule."
Exactly, because, as you said, everything in the world is not simple as "don't do bad things". Enforcing the rule predictably and continuously sets the standard that there's no wiggle room to avoid the rule. THAT protects privacy, by protecting the rule protecting privacy. When the ends justify the means and individual moral compasses outweigh the agreed upon rules, then you don't have "rules" anymore, you have "guidelines" and good luck with that.
You mean the rules set down by the society this takes place in, right?
Try as you might, AC, you cannot develop rules that will consistently line up with everyone's individual concepts of "good", or any other moral and entirely subjective constructs.
If the rules aren't enforced consistently and equally they lose their value. As a potential example; if these kids were not punished, a potential and likely lesson to them would be that it's possible to avoid the consequences of the rules if they can merely come up with a good enough excuse when caught. On the other hand, if the kids know the rules will be enforced even if they DID have a "moral reason" then they will be more likely to save such exploits for those occasions exclusively.
And that gets to what the rules are really about, not morality, but order. They are, in their ever evolving (and sometimes questionable) state, the best middle-ground we have for a system to try to allow our infinite number of perspectives to attempt to live and cooperate together.
The different levels of consequences that can be applied for breaking the rules is the design where we get to recognize and react to the difference between these kids looking for a thief and if someone set up a camera specifically to invade student's privacy.
I'm really starting to ramble, I could go on and on about this. Suffices to say you're an idiot.
Possibility? The rule is no recording in the locker room. It's not "no recording in the locker room - sometimes" or "recording allowed so far as you don't think your spoiling anyone's privacy". It's no recording in the locker room, ever.
What the kid's are learning is consistency and equal treatment of the rules and accepting the consequences of their actions. They should be seeing it in two ways; they get punished and the teacher gets let go.
They should also be learning that sometimes doing the right thing doesn't mean getting a reward.
I was one time actually stopped by a couple of guys who had themselves made up to try to seem like cops. This allowed them to get up close to me where they interrogated me at gun point for all my personal information and tried to take my bike. Some people showed up and the guys abandoned their cause, but not without taking some pot shots at me. They had "official sounding" speak, walkie-talkies, guns but no believable badges, even from a distance.
Nobody, especially an officer, should expect anyone to realize you're an officer simply because you have a weapon and told someone to stop. They should be identifying themselves and presenting a badge first, until then you're just an aggressive stranger with a fatal weapon.
I probably would've bailed on this officer soon as I saw he was getting out with a gun.
"(Although come to think of it, neither side would let me on the jury once they found out what I've published.)"
Exactly. Jurors are tested by both sides for the knowledge they bring in.
I don't think jurors should be allowed to search the internet about the case they are on for, I think they risk a higher chance of being contaminated either by unfairly biased opinion presented as fact or by outright lies.
I don't support active ISP censorship though...sets a bad precedent for the role of an ISP.
No, you shouldn't be allowed to check the net if that is correct. That's the oppositions job to find a professional to verify/disprove that.
It is not the point of the jury to play police investigator, it is their role to make a judgment on the presented evidence only.
This prevents all kinds of problems, such as jurors being swayed by baseless rumors among the public, by evidence the public knows about that won't make it into court because it was, for example, illegally obtained, etc., etc..
Furthermore, I think its really naive for anyone to assume these jurors would be going to the net and always finding clearly credible evidence/facts they could use in their decision.