It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Freedom of Speech vs. Bullying: So, which is it?

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

However, I find it very disturbing that you can have your entire life destroyed for holding a private opinion that is unpopular. How many of us at ATS would be similarly crucified in the court of public opinion and stand to lose everything?

Was there any evidence that his opinions caused him to treat his players or associates in an unfair manner in his business dealings? If not, then however unsavory, his opinions remained just that - his opinions. But it seems these days they are enough to get you fired. Look at the Mozilla CEO and now the Atlanta Fire Chief who have suffered similar fates for similar unpopular opinions. Did those opinions color how they handled their professional life? If there is no evidence of it, then there should be no repercussions for holding unpopular opinions, and any actions taken because of them is only bullying done by the public PC police to attempt to enforce "correct" thought on everyone.




posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: thesmokingman

We haven't had much to agree on before but I'm with you. A couple if times I've said freedom of speech comes with responsibility. Responses? Crickets.

Something is inherently wrong and I don't know what it is. Arrogance?




Absolutely right - just because you can say something, doesn't mean you should.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: stargatetravels

And just because you say something doesn't mean you should have to live in fear of losing everything because you said it, either.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Satire or not the cartoons were offensive. Not every Muslim is a terrorist deserving ridicule. In my opinion there's really only one reason one deliberately offends others and that's due to prejudice or sociopathy. All that said, absolutely the cartoonists had every right to draw and publish the cartoons they did and did not deserve to be massacred over them. No one has the right to commit mass murder. However this isn't a free speech issue though it's being turned into one. Freedom of Speech only guarantees freedom from persecution by a government. What those terrorists did was not violating speech because they aren't a government... it was murder.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: stargatetravels

And just because you say something doesn't mean you should have to live in fear of losing everything because you said it, either.



Yea, ideally. But I think it's more or less safe to say that somebody somewhere can get offended by anything said about politics or religions, and may just be a big enough nutjob to act on their being offended. It'd be great to live in a world that you could say whatever you wanted without any fear of reprisal, but that's not a very realistic world.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid


Did the person ask for your opinion on their weight or did you share it because you aimed to offend?




i was just trying to generalise a situation without a lengthy post.

I would not have aimed to offend, but i am a straight to the point

type of person, and if someone is obviously obese/fat i personally

think it is patronising to say anything different. They know they

are not blind

Earlier today i watched a programme about overweight people,

and those who had lost weight and the consensus was that the

tough approach with honesty produced better results.





And if the recipient has poor self esteem? Mental problems? A history of abuse? It's NOT "how they take it."


Not always but .....

Sometimes tough love is a better option then wallowing in their

problems with them.

Sometimes its what gives them the motivation to do something



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: eletheia
Not always but .....

Sometimes tough love is a better option then wallowing in their

problems with them.

Sometimes its what gives them the motivation to do something



And sometimes it leads to suicide. How can one decide?



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   
The real joke is that many that seem to be taking this harder than others have in the past called and wished for violence against wbc.

Honestly if it was wbc instead of some cartooning characters would people care or would they say they deserve it.

The thing has always been that yes we are somewhat free from the law to say things but we still have to answer to humanity.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: stargatetravels

And just because you say something doesn't mean you should have to live in fear of losing everything because you said it, either.





I wasn't even remotely saying you should.
Everyone should be free to draw and say what they please.
However we don't live in that world - if you play with fire you might get burned.
There is not and will never be justification of violence or death for expressing oneself - never.
But if you have been told you will be killed and know for a fact that other cartoonists have been killed and you keep printing the cartoons - then something will break.
And it will be the crazy, blood thirsty extremists who crack and then this is the result.

It's the most horrible, difficult and unbelievable situation that we are faced with.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesmokingman
but we do have freedom of speech, so its all good.

A good honest post but, the killer is, we don't have freedom of speech, not anywhere and the trick is, what anyone can get away with legally, or as an individual you have a massive consensus and nobody disagrees. What ever happened to Hyde Park Corner I wonder?



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid


And sometimes it leads to suicide. How can one decide?



I have had personal experience in that situation. And I had to

have psychiatric counselling to come to terms with the situation.

What I came away with is that the only person responsible for

suicide is the person themselves, no matter what others do

whether they comply or enable 'it is not their fault' it is within

the physcology of the person themselves and not because of

anything outside of themselves.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Honestly if it was wbc instead of some cartooning characters would people care or would they say they deserve it.
The thing has always been that yes we are somewhat free from the law to say things but we still have to answer to humanity.




WITH LIVES



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: eletheia

"What I came away with is..."

Right, you. People are different. You don't know what other's issues are. At what point of illness they have.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: eletheia

"What I came away with is..."

Right, you. People are different. You don't know what other's issues are. At what point of illness they have.




It wasn't me .... Any way i suppose that the study of psychiatry is

all from the same source so the reasoning would all be the same?

And that was the reasoning i was given.

I am prepared to take his word for it he is the professional not me



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
We have freedom of speech but we also have personal responsibility not to abuse it. If too many people start abusing it this right can start to disappear. Freedom of speech and right of assembly do not allow us to riot or destroy the property of others that had nothing to do with the situation either. Slandering someone is not covered by our freedom of speech. The judicial system knows that people sometimes do things in the heat of the moment that they would not do if they weren't fired up and does allow lighter penalties for minor first time offenders. Don't push it or you will wind up with freedom of speech and a lot of fines and possibly jail time. Learn to stay civil even when others loose their cool.

Very true but, the knot is already tightening in ways you might not think of like here, a Guardian blog four years old,
www.theguardian.com...



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: thesmokingman




Then, as far as the Paris killings. This paper has been posting these "offensive: cartoons for years, and they have also been being threatened for years, including a bombing a few years back. Yet, with their freedom of speech, they continued to release these cartoons, as if they were goading the very people they were offending. However, they have freedom of speech so thats ok, right?


But Muslims have been providing these cartoonists with solid reasons to make these cartoons about them, for years.

It's not like they are innocent and not deserving of criticism, be it in the form of satire, or other forms of condemnation.

This attack, if it really went down like it appears, shows that the criticism is completely justified.
edit on 8-1-2015 by Scaevola because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
The real joke is that many that seem to be taking this harder than others have in the past called and wished for violence against wbc.

Honestly if it was wbc instead of some cartooning characters would people care or would they say they deserve it.

The thing has always been that yes we are somewhat free from the law to say things but we still have to answer to humanity.



WBC are a boil on humanity's butt, but they don't deserve violence as a response no matter how detestable they are. They don't deserve that kind of attention, frankly. We should ignore them rather than giving them the platform they crave which is why they do what they do.

The thing is that when you start to curtail freedom of speech, then you start down the road to where eventually the truly important things cannot be said. The kicker is that it means that in the beginning you have to stand occasionally on the side of the boils who abuse their right in ways that make you really hate yourself when the fight is done.

I mean look at how much damage has already been done today. How many issues can we not even have a true dialogue on because one side is completely shut out of the argument because all the other side has to do is call people who express simple disagreement "haters?" In the end then, all you really wind up is one really long lecture with exactly one side of the argument lecturing the other in a "Shut up! And we're going to tell you exactly how it's going to be whether you like it or not!" situation.
edit on 8-1-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scaevola
a reply to: thesmokingman




Then, as far as the Paris killings. This paper has been posting these "offensive: cartoons for years, and they have also been being threatened for years, including a bombing a few years back. Yet, with their freedom of speech, they continued to release these cartoons, as if they were goading the very people they were offending. However, they have freedom of speech so thats ok, right?


But Muslims have been providing these cartoonists with solid reasons to make these cartoons about them, for years.

It's not like they are innocent and not deserving of criticism, be it in the form of satire, or other forms of condemnation.

This attack, if it really went down like it appears, shows that the criticism is completely justified.




This attack, if it really went down like it appears, shows that the criticism is completely justified.

Not really....I mean, I am sure these 3 men do not speak for the entire Muslim religion....I mean, if an American, or a christian kills a cop, does that mean ALL americans or christians want to kill cops and think cops should die?
edit on 8-1-2015 by thesmokingman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: thesmokingman




Not really....I mean, I am sure these 3 men do not speak for the entire Muslim religion....


Yes, but I am sure these cartoons were not about the entire Muslim religion. They were always aimed at the extremists.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: thesmokingman

No they don't, but world wide, you are going to be hard pressed to find many muslim communities at large sitting up to express shock and outrage at their actions.

Heck, they even shot a muslim police officer, and I don't see much outrage over that.




top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join