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.

 

Thought Police Now Making "Hate Speech" Arrests to Defend Charlie Hebdo's Freedom of Speech

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1
"Holocaust denial" is a crime all over Europe.

Is it a far stretch to think that "9/11 Denial" might be criminalized in the U.S.?


Yes, because the United States has the First Amendment which protects from exactly what you are talking about.

Is Holocaust denial illegal in the states?

The answer is no.




posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1

You're very welcome!

And no, it doesn't illustrate your point because your point is a hypothetical "what if?"

Holocaust denial = a crime in Germany.

9/11 denial = not a crime. Anywhere.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Aliian

Google Glass is already here and it is doing abysmally.

How Google Screwed Up Google Glass


Google is relaunching Google Glass in 2015, aimed first at corporate customers. The general consumer market was a miss.
But they are not the only ones doing this interfacing.

www.pcadvisor.co.uk...

And when they miniaturize this into the form factor of a simple "contact lens" it will really take off.

edit on 14-1-2015 by Aliian because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-1-2015 by Aliian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: Jamie1
You might want to read this.

EU countries do not have to even define "intent" let alone prove it.

Those accused of "hate speech" can only plead guilty or insane. They can't legally plead "not guilty."

Be careful what you wish for.


I read it. It backs up my position that the United States doesn't kowtow to European rules on the internet.

France wanted Yahoo to pay 100,000 francs a day for selling Nazi stuff on their websites. The United States laughed them out of court. Then, they wanted us to hand over people for "hate speech" and we told them no.


Now read this.

Twitter caved to French authorities demanding that those who talked smack about Jews be turned over.


Twitter can't extradite, so I'm not worried.


How about this?

I'm not trying to worry you.

I'm pointing out the reality.

It is now illegal to insult people in many countries.

Criminally illegal.

And there is precedent in the U.K. for arresting somebody because he was charged with defaming the dead in Germany.



That's why Freedom of Speech was the FIRST amendment.

I'm not worried about what they do anywhere else.


Good point.

This is a good point too. The Democrats have already introduced a bill to explore legislating against "hate speech" online in the U.S.

Try this..

The National Organization of Women has this to say in their support of the bill:

"We hope that the study will address continuing hate speech that vilifies women seeking reproductive health care..."

Vilify meaning disparaging. Insulting. They already have this all over Europe. You can get 2 years in jail in Iceland for insulting somebody publicly.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   
So for those of you on the 'free speech' bandwagon;

If you see a Muslim terrorist in your neighbourhood proclaiming 'Mohammed is the only prophet, that everyone else is an infidel and will die because of it' are you just going to say oh well, he is just exercising his right of free speech? What if they had a gun? A bomb?

I wouldn't put up with that crap. You shouldn't either. Speech that is clearly leading toward something like a massacre needs to be silenced.

It's perfectly okay to vent and show anger over an issue, but when you are announcing your intentions as these islamists do, then we need to intervene before they take the next step and act.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: markosity1973
So for those of you on the 'free speech' bandwagon;

If you see a Muslim terrorist in your neighbourhood proclaiming 'Mohammed is the only prophet, that everyone else is an infidel and will die because of it' are you just going to say oh well, he is just exercising his right of free speech? What if they had a gun? A bomb?

I wouldn't put up with that crap. You shouldn't either. Speech that is clearly leading toward something like a massacre needs to be silenced.

It's perfectly okay to vent and show anger over an issue, but when you are announcing your intentions as these islamists do, then we need to intervene before they take the next step and act.


Free speech is not a bandwagon. It's not a right given to us by our Lords in the government.

It's defined as an unalienable right in the U.S.

People in the U.S. declare all the time, every day, that their God is the only way and everybody else is destined for eternal damnation.

How do you present evidence in a court of law to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a future crime was going to be committed?

Of didn't you get on the evidence and trials bandwagon thing either?



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1

This doesn't surprise me at all. Unconstitutional legislation gets written and then the SCOTUS has to shut it down, even when passed with veto proof majorities.

en.wikipedia.org...

These things crumble under the weight of the Constitution.
edit on 14-1-2015 by TheArrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 07:07 PM
link   
This presents new opportunities for professional mind readers.

Are there any bids for contractors yet?




posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1

I find the arrests hypocritical. They are simply going too far. Short of actual violence or serious efforts to incite it people should not be arrested for expressing their opinion. They do have laws on the books but I have the feeling the authorities are using any excuse to make an arrest. Another thing that burned me was how the schools were upset with some students because they did not honor a forced, involuntary minute of silence. I bet the authorities would have arrested them to if they could have.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 09:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Jamie1

From your link:

France has strong laws against hate speech and especially anti-Semitism
...
Inciting terrorism can bring a 5-year prison term — or up to 7 years for inciting terrorism online.




France begins making arrests for "hate speech" because well... some speech is just not allowed.


Some speech is just not allowed here, either.


Do you think France will arrest the publishers of Charlie Hebdo for inciting terrorism?




So speaking out and lampooning terror is inciting terror? Talk about thought police. Better shut up or we will blow you up and blame you for it.

"Milo testified against the gangsters in court. They later found his body in a dumpster. Milo should have consider other peoples feelings before he testified"."
edit on 14-1-2015 by Logarock because: n



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 06:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Jamie1

From your link:

France has strong laws against hate speech and especially anti-Semitism
...
Inciting terrorism can bring a 5-year prison term — or up to 7 years for inciting terrorism online.




France begins making arrests for "hate speech" because well... some speech is just not allowed.


Some speech is just not allowed here, either.


Do you think France will arrest the publishers of Charlie Hebdo for inciting terrorism?




So speaking out and lampooning terror is inciting terror? Talk about thought police. Better shut up or we will blow you up and blame you for it.

"Milo testified against the gangsters in court. They later found his body in a dumpster. Milo should have consider other peoples feelings before he testified"."


Person A spoke published cartoons insulting Muslim. There are "hate speech" laws in France that provide both civil and criminal penalties for defaming or insulting somebody based on religion. The result was 38 shot and 17 murdered. Person A was not arrested and instead supported in his right to speak freely.

Person B tweeted something that wasn't fully supportive of the "I am Charlie" bandwagon. Nobody was defamed or insulted. The result was nobody shot, nobody killed. Nothing.

Person B got arrested for supporting terrorists.

Which person's actions resulted in terrorist attacks? Not blaming the victims. Just being factual.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 06:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1

Person A spoke published cartoons insulting Muslim.

There are "hate speech" laws in France that provide both civil and criminal penalties for defaming or insulting somebody based on religion. The result was 38 shot and 17 murdered. Person A was not arrested and instead supported in his right to speak freely.

Person B tweeted something that wasn't fully supportive of the "I am Charlie" bandwagon. Nobody was defamed or insulted. The result was nobody shot, nobody killed. Nothing.

Person B got arrested for supporting terrorists.

Which person's actions resulted in terrorist attacks? Not blaming the victims. Just being factual.


The now infamous Mohammed was targeted at no single person. It was just a parody caricature that broke some religious rules.

AND

*It is no more insulting than seeing God's face in cartoons (which happens regularly) to Christians and Jews. It is strictly forbidden in the bible to make images of God.*

When was the last time a Christian or Jew went on a killing rampage over a stupid cartoon of God?

The problem lays with the Muslim attitude, not who publishes what. If we want to go down that road, we should be banning most publications because someone somewhere will take offense at almost everything in print.


edit on 15-1-2015 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 06:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1

The paper wasn't really insulting someone religion but simply pointing out that some are violent in the name of Muhammad. It was a fair interpretation of that element. The killers proved the point then. They do operated behind the façade of Muhammad.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 06:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: markosity1973

originally posted by: Jamie1

Person A spoke published cartoons insulting Muslim.

There are "hate speech" laws in France that provide both civil and criminal penalties for defaming or insulting somebody based on religion. The result was 38 shot and 17 murdered. Person A was not arrested and instead supported in his right to speak freely.

Person B tweeted something that wasn't fully supportive of the "I am Charlie" bandwagon. Nobody was defamed or insulted. The result was nobody shot, nobody killed. Nothing.

Person B got arrested for supporting terrorists.

Which person's actions resulted in terrorist attacks? Not blaming the victims. Just being factual.


The now infamous Mohammed was targeted at no single person. It was just a parody caricature that broke some religious rules.

AND

*It is no more insulting that seeing God's face in cartoons (which happens regularly) to Christians and Jews. It is strictly forbidden in the bible to make images of God.*

When was the last time a Christian or Jew went on a killing rampage over a stupid cartoon of God?

The problem lays with the Muslim attitude, not who publishes what. If we want to go down that road, we should be banning most publications because someone somewhere will take offense at almost everything in print.



What road?

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the French government having a rally in support of free speech for Charlie Hebdo and then arresting a comedian for a tweet that was far less inflammatory than what Charlie Hebdo publishes.

For France to say they support free speech is just a plain lie. They don't.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 06:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Jamie1

The paper wasn't really insulting someone religion but simply pointing out that some are violent in the name of Muhammad. It was a fair interpretation of that element. The killers proved the point then. They do operated behind the façade of Muhammad.



Yes. Agreed.

So why was the comedian arrested for a tweet? That's the question. His tweet was simply conveying he could understand both sides of the issue.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 06:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1


Yea its getting bad when they go after comedians.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 06:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1

From the OP article;


Dieudonne M'Bala M'Bala, a popular and controversial comic, was briefly detained and ordered to trial in February on charges of justifying terrorism. He has repeated convictions for racism and anti-Semitism, and most recently called himself "Charlie Coulibaly" in a Facebook post, mixing the names of the newspaper and the market attacker.


Yeah, a totally innocent person that is being picked upon by TPTB.....

NOT

If you make a name for yourself by inciting trouble, then you can't expect to get away with this sort of thing when something serious goes down. Serves the comedian right.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 07:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: Jamie1

From the OP article;


Dieudonne M'Bala M'Bala, a popular and controversial comic, was briefly detained and ordered to trial in February on charges of justifying terrorism. He has repeated convictions for racism and anti-Semitism, and most recently called himself "Charlie Coulibaly" in a Facebook post, mixing the names of the newspaper and the market attacker.


Yeah, a totally innocent person that is being picked upon by TPTB.....

NOT

If you make a name for yourself by inciting trouble, then you can't expect to get away with this sort of thing when something serious goes down. Serves the comedian right.


Get away with what "sort of thing?"

Tweeting the name "Charlie Coulibaly"?

Inciting trouble? What trouble did he incite?

Ironic.

France has huge rally for free speech. A few days later a French guy is arrested for a Tweet.

Which is it?

Charlie Hedbo is supported in causing trouble with their cartoons.

Comedian is arrested for a tweet that caused no trouble.

Is there a rationale you can define that differentiates between having a rally for you and being arrested?



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: tallcool1

They are seeing it cool1 but the site motto deny ignorance is just another thing for Islamophobes & Zionists to rally against...


Don't think those people haven't seen your post...
Or haven't heard that the gentleman was sacked from the very same magazine for his freedom of expression about Jewishness...


Live long and prosper in the knowledge that they just cannot debate you on it...

So pretending they haven't seen it or your post gives them the ability to continue the line of thought that freedom of expression is the most important thing in the Universe...

Wait until they have kids...
& then start telling their children you can't draw that, you can't say that, you can't do that...


Because as long as its not them & theirs in danger...
Everything is A-Okay!!!


The magazine is hypocritical & French Law is hypocritical...


Hold on...
Muhammad was an Arab...
Arabs are Semitic people...

I shall now scream "anti-Semitism" at the top of my Lungs!
edit on 15-1-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: markosity1973

What if the speech that inspires a massacre comes from someone who doesn't believe in it themselves...

Such as pissing off Muslim Extremists with a cartoon that in all fairness, has no necassary application in any walk of Life...

No one sits around thinking "I have to do this because I need to make a stand" without at least considering that a massacre may occur...
If that's not taken into consideration stupidity has prevailed...


If the cartoon was done on the artists Twitter or facebook...
He is endangering no one but himself...

What he did endangered the lives of others...


So again...

What if the speech that inspires a massacre, & can be predicted with foresight quite easily...
How is that speech not considered inflammatory & dangerous to the public?







 
18
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join