Nice try. I find some conservatives find a completely principled position is difficult to handle. They want to use situational ethics to achieve what they believe to be the proper “conservative” outcome.
I am of the opinion that violating your core principles is never right, even to achieve what would be a “good result”.
Thus, in the topic which has stirred your ire, I apply conservative principles of law and order to determine that, absent clear and convincing evidence, we should respect the jury system and the judicial system, that law enforcement officers shouldn’t fire on suspects without a reasonable certainty of danger, should never do so without proper reporting, and should follow all the procedures they are pledged to follow and never lie to investigators for ANY reason.
Here, if there is a copyright issue, we should not as conservatives gleefully violate personal property rights, even if the outcome is the “correct” one. If we can violate her property rights, she can violate ours.
Of course, labelling me a troll is certainly easier for you than thinking and putting forth a supported position of your own. Refutation is a lot harder than name-calling.
I hear ya.
Copyright—pffft! Most universities I’ve seen consider theses to be in the public domain unless they are registered otherwise.
Next thing you know, folks will be claiming her “privacy rights” were violated.
This isn’t about intellectual property. It is about hiding relevant public information from reaching voters. More Clinton cover-ups, nothing more.