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.

 

Social Shamming is NOT a Freedom of Speech Issue

page: 2
23
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Very timely post!

I just saw a story today that exemplifies what you're saying.

College student tweets she has no sympathy for cops that were killed in NY.

Journalist publishes her hateful tweets, which people speak out against.

College student claims her freedom of speech has been "disenfranchised" because of attempts to "belittle" her viewpoint.

And this is at a $60,000 a year college.

Here's the link.




posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1

Holy crap! That girl is DUUUUUUUUMB. Like she isn't just hateful, she is moronic. Leaving her grammar aside, I think this gem really speaks to her intelligence (keep in mind, she posted this to Twitter):

"Does matter what i believe?" she wrote. "Its my own personal opinion which I as a private citizen which do not want publicized in any form and if you do not abide my wishes i constitute your disregard as slander."

If you don't want your opinions publicized, don't post them to Twitter for the world to see!

I hope she isn't studying law. Though the way she gets agitated about race relations, we may just have the next Al Sharpton on our hands. YAY! *puke*
edit on 13-1-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: vasaga

There are a lot of things I find wrong with the Edward Snowden case, but I'm not entirely sure it is a free speech issue. I think it has more to do with violating security protocols and leaking classified information. It's a gray that you may have a point with. Though it is certainly more complicated than just a "freedom of speech" issue.

Ok... I guess you'd say the same for the likes of Julian Assange. But anyway, it was just a final note. The most important part of my post came before the "we have no freedom of speech in the west".



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: vasaga

Yes, that was a good point. Too many people need to go restudy law before they start flinging around Constitutional buzzwords like freedom of speech.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Jamie1

Holy crap! That girl is DUUUUUUUUMB. Like she isn't just hateful, she is moronic. Leaving her grammar aside, I think this gem really speaks to her intelligence (keep in mind, she posted this to Twitter):

"Does matter what i believe?" she wrote. "Its my own personal opinion which I as a private citizen which do not want publicized in any form and if you do not abide my wishes i constitute your disregard as slander."

If you don't want your opinions publicized, don't post them to Twitter for the world to see!

I hope she isn't studying law. Though the way she gets agitated about race relations, we may just have the next Al Sharpton on our hands. YAY! *puke*


lol I didn't even see that gem of a comment.

Colleges have substituted indoctrination for education.

So now "free speech" includes saying stupid stuff and not having other people repeat what was said.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1

What's worse is that the girl is a millennial. She should KNOW that privacy and the internet aren't a thing. That disregards all the blatant inaccuracies she has made about the law (what is an isn't freedom of speech, what is and isn't slander, what is and isn't allowed to be done with public information, etc).



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1

That toolbag also confused slander (spoken defamation) with libel (written defamation).

Mommy and daddy should ask for a refund from that $65,000 they are dropping.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Question: what is the difference between Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press?

And, I believe, photos are copyrighted. You can't take a photo off the internet and reprint it without permission.

But, it's OK to reprint someone's text without permission?

Just curious.

As far as the student goes? I have zero tolerance for "Victimhood".



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
Question: what is the difference between Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press?


Freedom of press applies to the media and was written to allow the media to be critical of the government and its actions. The government is unable to say or do anything to a media outlet that prints something unfavorable about it. There is some overlap here with freedom of speech, but I guess our forefathers wanted to explicitly separate the two to make sure that was clear.


And, I believe, photos are copyrighted. You can't take a photo off the internet and reprint it without permission.


Photos are only copyrighted if the company that released it goes out of its way to copyright it. If they don't explicitly do that, then the picture isn't copyrighted and it is in the public domain.


But, it's OK to reprint someone's text without permission?


Yes, opinions aren't copyrighted in any way shape or form.


Just curious.

As far as the student goes? I have zero tolerance for "Victimhood".


She needs to go redouble up her studying habits and actually learn a thing or two before she starts talking nationally again.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Photos are only copyrighted if the company that released it goes out of its way to copyright it. If they don't explicitly do that, then the picture isn't copyrighted and it is in the public domain.


I don't know about that.

I know laws are still catching up to the Internet. But, I believe there was recent legislation on photos. I believe photos are automatically copyrighted to the photographer.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Well you are going to have to produce some evidence to those claims because that is news to me.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Photos are only copyrighted if the company that released it goes out of its way to copyright it. If they don't explicitly do that, then the picture isn't copyrighted and it is in the public domain.


I don't know about that.

I know laws are still catching up to the Internet. But, I believe there was recent legislation on photos. I believe photos are automatically copyrighted to the photographer.


Rather than perpetuate speculations, read this.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Copyright for photos do not need to be registered, at least in the US. Copyright is automatic for the photographer, unless it is work done under a contract that states otherwise. Registration is helpful, if you plan to enforce your copyright if anyone infringes. A lot of people have been screwed by wedding photographers because of that.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Annee

Well you are going to have to produce some evidence to those claims because that is news to me.


On it as you were posting. Should of had it ready, but my internet is really flaky. Keeps kicking me off (this is just the first site I found. Took me 3 times to post it because of my internet. LOL I'm a victim of sucky internet)

I know this only because I worked for a publisher and did graphics.



What are the rules about copyright of images and photos? Copyright is a form of legal protection that is automatically assigned to content creators at the moment of creation. In other words, the moment you take a photograph, you own the copyright to it. You don’t have to register it with a special organisation, you don’t have to fill in a form or add a legal notice to the image. The rights to use, amend or sell that image are yours and yours alone. You are also allowed to give away or sell those rights, if you wish - and that’s how many professional photographers make money; by selling rights to their work. That also means that no one else is allowed to use your work without your permission. Many people assume that if content is online that it is "public domain" and that it's not copyrighted. That’s just a myth.


www.macworld.co.uk...

NOTE: I didn't notice this was UK until after posting. But, I'm pretty sure it's the same in the US


edit on 13-1-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: TKDRL
Copyright for photos do not need to be registered, at least in the US. Copyright is automatic for the photographer, unless it is work done under a contract that states otherwise. Registration is helpful, if you plan to enforce your copyright if anyone infringes. A lot of people have been screwed by wedding photographers because of that.


So if a monkey in the woods takes a selfie does the picture then belong to the monkey or the person who holds the camera? I think I heard about this coming up, never heard the ruling.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

According to the DMCA, you are correct.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove
I remember hearing a case like that. I think it was a zoo monkey that supposedly snatched his camera and took a nice selfie. Then someone republished it without his permission, saying that since he didn't take it, he had no grounds to sue. Cameraman claimed he did since he owned the camera. I have no idea who won, or if it was ever settled. Funny case.

The internet really is muddying the waters, there has been a ruling somewhere that said bloggers are equivilent to press, and are afforded the same priveledges. So I would assume that could carry over, that as soon as you publish a photo you took on your blog, it fass under published works rules. Who knows, all this needs to be fought out in court and settled I guess.

According to this Cameraman lost the case.


In new guidance the USCO has ruled that only works created by a human can be copyrighted under US law, which excludes photographs and artwork created by animals or by machines without human intervention.

edit on Tue, 13 Jan 2015 13:27:22 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Annee

According to the DMCA, you are correct.


Thank you.

So, back to my question ----- not trying to derail thread.

If you can't reprint photos without permission ----- is it, should it, be legal to reprint what someone writes without their permission?



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: TKDRL
I think it is wrong to fire someone for using their free speech on their own time.


That's fine for you to think it's wrong. But getting fired for saying something doesn't mean their Free Speech was violated, which is what many people claim.


Then if you say something that your employer would disagree with, it becomes perfectly fine for any one of us to dig up your identity and out you to your employer. Pretty soon, no one can say anything that does not conform to "proper" thought and there is no freedom of speech anywhere. In fact, if you try to express your opinion to your government and it is not a "proper" one, you can lose everything. So in fact, your freedom of speech becomes a moot point.

So why bother having it at all at that point?



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
If you can't reprint photos without permission ----- is it, should it, be legal to reprint what someone writes without their permission?


This was accepted common law under the Fair Abridgement (or Fair Use) ruling.

It was codified in the Copyright Act of 1976.





edit on 13-1-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join