Dave Kopel
Re: “Surveillance tactic…”—On the Media, 8/25/07 This much is clear: Dave Kopel is all for promoting debauchery in publicly licensed nightclubs. Too bad he has so little acquaintance with moral principles. What is not clear, is why (other than wanting to get even) he badmouths talk-show host Dan Caplis, who suggested ways a neighborhood can legally go about protecting itself from what it believes to be an invasion of moral blight, when the authorities cannot or will not act.
Advantage this round: Caplis.
This letter has not been edited.
I hardly think the fact that Mr. Kopel opposes videotaping of people going about their own business without bothering anybody to be promoting debauchery. I have read many of Mr. Kopel's columns. I often disagree with him. but I suspect he is just as ethical and moral as the letter writer.
Rather, Mr. Kopel appears to be strongly committed to libertarian principles, feels that people going to the nightclub in question aren't harming anybody, and therefore should be left alone.
Who gets to define "debauchery", "moral principles" or "moral blight?" Is their a central Public Decency Standards and Definitions Board that we can consult to find out the official absolutes we must all adhere to?
Just curious as I must have missed the memo ordering us all to accept their rulings.
Posted by on August 29, 2007 02:53 PMI'm certainly someone who disagrees with Kopel on a lot of issues, but he's right on this. Unless someone is being forced into this nightclub, you aren't going to have to be exposed to this "moral blight".
Besides, why a scold from Longmont and a lawyer from Cherry Hills Village care about a bar in Denver is beyond silly anyway.
Posted by MM on August 29, 2007 10:31 PMCaplis is a fat little moron, and Conarroe's desire to bugger him is obvious.
Posted by on September 1, 2007 12:12 AM