Should the New York Times and Washington Post have printed the Unabomber's manifesto?

Elizabeth Gaines
Junior
Theater, History
"Absolutely. It's important that we all be able to understand what he's thinking. There's nothing wrong with it. Nobody's going to read it and go out and bomb anybody. Why shouldn't they print it? Who's it going to damage?"

Jamie Winderbaum
Sophomore
Biology
"Yes, because they put plenty of stuff that should not go into print. So this was important enough. It affected enough people, so they should be able to read it."

Vickie Thornton
Staff Nurse
Egleston Hospital
"No. I think it's just feeding into his demands. If you do that you'll just get more demands. Wrong approach. I understand why, but I just don't think they should have done it."

Charles Torrence
Central Processing
Emory Hospital
"I believe they did it because they have a responsibility to the public. If people are aware, they'll have their defenses up. They had a duty to do it."

Christian Pitter
Fourth-year Student
Medicine
"No, because it opens the door for similar sorts of extortion from any lunatic that has an agenda. They should have totally ignored it. Eventually guys like that make a mistake. Really they're allowing the perpetuation of this kind of thing. He has basically held the whole country hostage, and the media should be above that."