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: 5
18
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesmokingman

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?

I totally agree. You can say whatever you want, just be ready to accept the repercussions of said speech. Also, yes, I believe it is extreme arrogance.


Considering the militant track record they have this "bullying" coming. They are f**king head hunters for petes sake and they already have the attention of the world.




posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: thesmokingman

I live in the USA, I have never or heard of this magazine, the thing is I saw a picture that one of my coworkers showed me and it was the normal just a picture , he said that is what started it, so since I got home and since I last commented I was operating on that image, now, it took me awhile to troll youtube and I saw some of the comics, and to say the least, I don't think that ATS might allow some of them up, I also saw them making caricatures of other religions, so now I have use that information to come back and possibly change my vote, there is a line, if you were to go look at the vulgar comics you might not let your kids see, well guess with the internet unfiltered they may have seen it all.

I would challenge anyone to go get some of the cartoons and post them up, I bet you they get banned, I am not going to elaborate any more than that, the only thing I might think of now, after seeing some of these cartoons was, possibly the old depictions in cartoons back in the 30's and 40's that showed the stereotypical exaggerated, eyes,noses or lips of certain ethnic groups, the kind of thing that yes here in America, except some showing homosexual acts etc.. there is free speech, but because of taste you don't see these types of images or pictures anymore in Hollywood or the mainstream press... again I just had a chance to look at the uncensored comics from that newspaper, still I do not think it rose to the level of people being killed, that was ridiculous, but I thought I would come back to weigh on what I just saw and had no clue of...
edit on 8-1-2015 by phinubian because: addding info



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: thesmokingman

Freedom of speech does not includes things that are already illegal like harassment or threats.

Who said they did?



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 09:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: phinubian
a reply to: thesmokingman

I live in the USA, I have never or heard of this magazine, the thing is I saw a picture that one of my coworkers showed me and it was the normal just a picture , he said that is what started it, so since I got home and since I last commented I was operating on that image, now, it took me awhile to troll youtube and I saw some of the comics, and to say the least, I don't think that ATS might allow some of them up, I also saw them making caricatures of other religions, so now I have use that information to come back and possibly change my vote, there is a line, if you were to go look at the vulgar comics you might not let your kids see, well guess with the internet unfiltered they may have seen it all.

I would challenge anyone to go get some of the cartoons and post them up, I bet you they get banned, I am not going to elaborate any more than that, the only thing I might think of now, after seeing some of these cartoons was, possibly the old depictions in cartoons back in the 30's and 40's that showed the stereotypical exaggerated, eyes,noses or lips of certain ethnic groups, the kind of thing that yes here in America, except some showing homosexual acts etc.. there is free speech, but because of taste you don't see these types of images or pictures anymore in Hollywood or the mainstream press... again I just had a chance to look at the uncensored comics from that newspaper, still I do not think it rose to the level of people being killed, that was ridiculous, but I thought I would come back to weigh on what I just saw and had no clue of...

Absolutely great point! I have seen these cartoon comics you speak of and yes, they would be considered bannable material on ATS, I guarantee it. Thank you for coming back and sharing that, greatly appreciated.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: thesmokingman

a persons rights end where another's begins. Threats of violence violate another's rights hence bullying is not protected speech and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: phinubian

Yes, but they were equal opportunity. No one had to buy Charlie Hebdo the same way no one has to watch South Park (also equal opportunity).

And a point I made earlier is that you cannot tell them not to offend one group without telling them not offend all of them. No one group should get to be a special snowflake, and if you mark off all groups as beyond critique, then you have to start talking about how far is too far and what groups qualify because there will be that next group that comes and says, "You can't make fun of them ... why can't our group be off limits for offense as well? These things are just as damaging to us ..." And on and on it goes, pretty soon no one can talk about anything for fear of offending someone.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: th3dudeabides
a reply to: thesmokingman

a persons rights end where another's begins. Threats of violence violate another's rights hence bullying is not protected speech and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent.


How does a threat violate your unalienable rights? Which one please?



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: thesmokingman

Justify the killing of people over cartoons over private comments by Sterling? No way Sterling is right,pretty pathetic to try and link him with this, whether tongue in cheek comment.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: mugger
a reply to: thesmokingman

Justify the killing of people over cartoons over private comments by Sterling? No way Sterling is right,pretty pathetic to try and link him with this, whether tongue in cheek comment.

Dude, I did NOT justify the killing of anybody! Reading comprehension....



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: thesmokingman

People take offense to the slightest things today because they told you how to think. They gave it life. It's like the sign that say's, 'No handball here'. People never did it before the sign was posted, but do now. The weakest link usually kill others or kill themselves because they fell for it.
edit on 8-1-2015 by LOSTinAMERICA because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 01:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Forensick
You have a responsibility for what you say and how people may react to that. Recently a chap in England was arrested for tweeting a joke that was offensive to some people, a joke!



One word ..... Frankie Boyle?




But you have choices to not be a victim too, just dont buy and read the comics/film.
There are millions of Muslims in France who probably know quite well what the Comic was priniting but chose not to read it and not to be offended.



Oh how I agree with that phrase ... "You have the choice not
to be a victim."



So it cannot be bullying, because it isnt forced upon you, you have the choice to turn the other cheek. And seriously, if the thought of someone disliking your choice of religion and mocking it makes you so angry you want to kill or feel like you are being bullied, then IMO its that person that is the problem.
The comic was just an excuse for fanatical terrorists at some kind of justification.





posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 03:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: eletheia




One word ..... Frankie Boyle?




Well its two words!

Whilst I dont go in for bullying, this freedom of speech thing is difficult, on one hand, we ban fundamentalist clerics from preaching hatred under "inciting hate crimes" however if you look at it from my perspective (and I suppose many others) they are talking about a Sky Pixie that doesnt exist which IMO make its preaching laughable and irrelevent.

However, i do find myself offended by their preaching death and hatred to the country that they live in, especially as I chose no religion, I certainly dont want any other beleifs forced on me. So I dont listen to it, but then I see it on the news that Abu Hamza is stood in the streets of London spweing hatred and bile about anyone who doesnt beleive in Islam and persucution to women and I have to admit, it would not bother me in the slightest if some white power fanatics petrol bombed the whole congregation and yet I feel really aggreaved about this.

It is a bizzare place i find myself in, or is it OK to have these potentially double standards because the agenda they are pushing will persecute women, ban everything I enjoy and force me to bow down several times a day praising something I do not beleive in, whereas my agenda is just each to their own...

edit on 9 1 2015 by Forensick because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 06:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
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?


It certainly does suck that such things can happen. I won't disagree with you, but that is just one of the consequences of free speech. Everyone has an opinion and sometimes the majority of those opinions may be that they don't like you for some reason. All you can do is argue your case with your own freedom of speech and hope people start believing you.


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.



Again, that is just a consequence of freedom of speech. The companies these people work have the freedom to determine that they don't want you working there anymore because of something you said. Would you advocate restricting any of this speech? I wouldn't. I'm just willing to take the good with the bad.

The world isn't safe and any number of things out there can destroy your life. Such is life though. That's what makes it so exciting.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 07:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
It certainly does suck that such things can happen. I won't disagree with you, but that is just one of the consequences of free speech. Everyone has an opinion and sometimes the majority of those opinions may be that they don't like you for some reason. All you can do is argue your case with your own freedom of speech and hope people start believing you.



Being disliked .... being ostracised .... for my beliefs and opinions

I can live with, but to loose my life for them



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: eletheia

Well murder is illegal...

But if you are talking about your livelihood, then I'm sorry. That is the way the world works. You have to be able to take the good with the bad. Sometimes the bad is EXTREMELY unfair and there is nothing you can do about it, because the alternative would be a worse situation. The alternative here being, forcing the public not to be mean to each other (ie restricting speech).
edit on 9-1-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Well in France people have and are loosing their lives for

exercising their rights?

I was brought up with the old "sticks and stones" adage ... I don't

suppose many of the younger members of ATS know of that one?



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: eletheia

Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me? That one? I'm pretty sure elementary kids are still saying that to each other during recess.

But in any case, yes losing your life over something you said is bad. So I guess that means it is up to you to watch what you say lest you reap violence. Violence is already illegal, we can't prevent these things from happening any more than we do already. So at some point, you have to accept a certain amount of risk for what you say. The people in Paris were repeatedly warned by the terrorists and even attacked previously before they were killed. They knew they were flirting with disaster. To be honest, I commend them for going through with it despite what happened.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 07:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: eletheia
Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me? That one? I'm pretty sure elementary kids are still saying that to each other during recess.



That's the one .... didn't think it was still around!




But in any case, yes losing your life over something you said is bad. So I guess that means its up to you to watch what
you say lest you reap violence


OOPS ...well there goes freedom of speech



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 08:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: eletheia

OOPS ...well there goes freedom of speech


No, you still have your freedom of speech. You just have to recognize that some people may be upset with what you say and they may be violent people. But again, freedom of speech ONLY applies to government limitation. All other limitations are self-imposed and between you and your fears.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 10:26 AM
link   
It's not bullying. No one is forced to read it and it isn't harming those who dislike it.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join