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.

 

...But I'll defend to the death, your right to say it...

page: 14
23
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 09:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: annalisa2016

It just happens, can't really "show you" can describe a few instances, but you would have had to be there. One major one comes to mind during the LA Riots after the King verdict. A bunch of moronic idiots lined up hurling racial insults at each other, both sides were armed. I'm not proud of myself for standing with a few others in the middle and saying enough was enough, I could have been killed, but I did get out that while both sides had the right to their opinion, it wasn't worth starting a shootin war over, words are words, they hurt, yes, but should it ever be an excuse for physical harm? Not in my opinion but I was ready, willing and able to die that day if one side hadn't backed down, just to assist the side that was fired upon.


Finally, an actual example! My hat's off to you for standing up for the courage of your convictions. Do you think putting yourself in this threatening position actually made a difference? In other words, since the Riots ... have you seen an increase in "freedom of speech" in LA?




posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: annalisa2016

It just happens, can't really "show you" can describe a few instances, but you would have had to be there. One major one comes to mind during the LA Riots after the King verdict. A bunch of moronic idiots lined up hurling racial insults at each other, both sides were armed. I'm not proud of myself for standing with a few others in the middle and saying enough was enough, I could have been killed, but I did get out that while both sides had the right to their opinion, it wasn't worth starting a shootin war over, words are words, they hurt, yes, but should it ever be an excuse for physical harm? Not in my opinion but I was ready, willing and able to die that day if one side hadn't backed down, just to assist the side that was fired upon.


Finally, an actual example! My hat's off to you for standing up for the courage of your convictions. Do you think putting yourself in this threatening position actually made a difference? In other words, since the Riots ... have you seen an increase in "freedom of speech" in LA?


Unfortunately no, there's been less freedom of speech in LA, and every time I go back out there I am amazed at how intolerant the city has really gotten. But doesn't mean I wouldn't do it again.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: annalisa2016

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: annalisa2016

It just happens, can't really "show you" can describe a few instances, but you would have had to be there. One major one comes to mind during the LA Riots after the King verdict. A bunch of moronic idiots lined up hurling racial insults at each other, both sides were armed. I'm not proud of myself for standing with a few others in the middle and saying enough was enough, I could have been killed, but I did get out that while both sides had the right to their opinion, it wasn't worth starting a shootin war over, words are words, they hurt, yes, but should it ever be an excuse for physical harm? Not in my opinion but I was ready, willing and able to die that day if one side hadn't backed down, just to assist the side that was fired upon.


Finally, an actual example! My hat's off to you for standing up for the courage of your convictions. Do you think putting yourself in this threatening position actually made a difference? In other words, since the Riots ... have you seen an increase in "freedom of speech" in LA?


Unfortunately no, there's been less freedom of speech in LA, and every time I go back out there I am amazed at how intolerant the city has really gotten. But doesn't mean I wouldn't do it again.


Fair enough. Thank you very much! I admire your courage. Don't waste your life though.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't know, Gryphon. People do what they do. I guess it depends on the circumstances and what might be at stake, and how much value it might have to that person in that moment.

I think if something was really, really serious, I'd file a lawsuit and let a court hash it out. I wouldn't personally take another life to prove a point.

I don't like fighting. As for the others, I can't say. People can become irrational, passionate, act in the heat of the moment. I should think something along those acts, outside of a war scenario, would be considered homicide.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: annalisa2016

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: annalisa2016

It just happens, can't really "show you" can describe a few instances, but you would have had to be there. One major one comes to mind during the LA Riots after the King verdict. A bunch of moronic idiots lined up hurling racial insults at each other, both sides were armed. I'm not proud of myself for standing with a few others in the middle and saying enough was enough, I could have been killed, but I did get out that while both sides had the right to their opinion, it wasn't worth starting a shootin war over, words are words, they hurt, yes, but should it ever be an excuse for physical harm? Not in my opinion but I was ready, willing and able to die that day if one side hadn't backed down, just to assist the side that was fired upon.


Finally, an actual example! My hat's off to you for standing up for the courage of your convictions. Do you think putting yourself in this threatening position actually made a difference? In other words, since the Riots ... have you seen an increase in "freedom of speech" in LA?


Unfortunately no, there's been less freedom of speech in LA, and every time I go back out there I am amazed at how intolerant the city has really gotten. But doesn't mean I wouldn't do it again.


Fair enough. Thank you very much! I admire your courage. Don't waste your life though.


My life isn't worth all that much in the grand scheme of things anymore, so it wouldn't be a waste



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Learningman
a reply to: SaturnFX

Would you die for WBC though? I wont think little of you if you say no, and I wont think you dishonest if you say yes. I think we have a cultural difference when it comes to free speech and freedom of action.

If the government is coming down to silence peoples free speech, then yes, you have to, because they wont be stopping at just some religious nuts slinging insults, it will be all things considered "problematic"...aka, if its happening, they dissolved the constitution and we are now in a tyranny, and it is everyones duty to fight and overthrow the invaders.

Now, if someone is trying to shout them down, fight em, etc..have at it, I aint getting involved, thats just consequence for action. if it gets physical, courts will sort it out, in the meantime, give em one for me


But yeah, when speech is being banned, thoughts banned, 1st amendment of the constitution suspended..then we must act..else lose the ability to ever act. (exceptions of course are direct threats, national secrets, and anyone talking smack about fallout 4)



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 10:13 PM
link   
This is like a confession box therapy

I am glad people are getting everything of their chest about time



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 10:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
There's no laws protecting free speech from societal consequence. Perhaps you think there should be? But where to draw the lines?

Exactly. free speech is simply that, government let you speak your piece.

And society will do as society wants to do. debate, ignore, dismiss, etc..sometimes people go overboard and fight or even kill...obviously fighting and killing gets law involved.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean requirement to be heard either. I have opinions about lots of things, but there is no law demanding the press or anyone give me a soapbox to stand on.


A more interesting debate is censorship. there are a couple different types of censorship, 1 being of course government banning of speech. the other being a movement to remove or silence someone through pressure of outlets (such as the moms were doing in the 80s demanding record stores stop selling rock albums and such



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: nenothtu

I have a fair idea of the reaction of people, on this site specifically, if I was in the news, dead, tomorrow, because someone killed me for calling for Sharia Law in the West...

And I don't think many of them would be defending me.


As it stands I have no wish to live under Sharia Law.


To be fair, if you were reported as already dead, there would not be much point in me jumping a plane to come defend you. I'd probably need a bit of a heads-up, some lead time, prior to the event.

I have already defended one gent, a fine old fella from Pakistan, for saying he believed shari'a would be good for the US. I didn't agree with that sentiment, which was made plain in private conversation, but nonetheless, I defended him from what I considered an irrational onslaught of reaction. Now, again to be fair, I didn't defend him to the death - I'm here writing this. Would I have? Only one way to know... bring death on to see. That's where the rubber meets the road.

There are other example of whether I would defend speech, and even actions, that I find distasteful, some here at ATS, but this is as close as I can come to the example you've provided.

Yup, I support your right not to stretch your own neck out for those you oppose as well. Some folks are just not cut out for that sort of thing, and you may be one of them. No harm in that - the harm would be in trying to force you to change your spots and act against your own conscience. That wouldn't be any different than trying to force me to pray eastward to the house of a god I despise, 5 times a day, or forcing me to give up bacon sammiches.

Not gonna happen for me, nor should it for you.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: nenothtu

I have a fair idea of the reaction of people, on this site specifically, if I was in the news, dead, tomorrow, because someone killed me for calling for Sharia Law in the West...

And I don't think many of them would be defending me.


As it stands I have no wish to live under Sharia Law.


I'm going to be honest here, if I where on a train and some bro started to preach something like sharia, and some outraged individual wanted to shut him down, I most certainly would step from my seat and say let him finish, he has the right to say what he want to say, after the preacher end I would probably just crap my self rolling on the floor laughing at the stupidity of the preacher as a way to exert my free speech.

Everyone has the right to express themselves, someone can say all they want how good sharia is or whatever else, when someone tries to impose their ideas, that is no longer speech that is action and it will be meet with reaction.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Write a vague and cryptic post about being politically correct and mix in conflicting ideologies about protecting peoples freedom of speech while drawing a line in the sand about what they can say.

you seem confused and that's not a personal attack on you its a honest response to your thread. In what situation do you honestly think your going to protect someone who is being politically correct?

have you ever noticed the word politically correct? Do you know why they use that term? Its not because its the right thing to say or the hard thing to say it's because politically it makes less enemies and get's them more votes hence the term politically correct. Its about votes "that's it"



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 02:58 AM
link   
To use the examples put forth, I think that in the United States both racism and homophobia have often not just been an exercise in "free speech". This speech is usually coupled with active subjugation or other methods of repression of rights (both through the legal system and in a refusal to comply with protective laws) of the freedoms defined in the constitution (supposedly). And the irony is that these are often the same groups (racists, homophobic) that want the government out of peoples lives.

But this gets us into a interesting area. Because while using the power of "free speech", the speech alone can be a very moving force for subjugation (certainly for it's legal legislation). Shifting public opinion through various means in an attempt to garner a powerful majority. But we are then in a dangerous world of, through accusation, applying an intention to the "free speech" that is not directly stated (even if the intention is as blatant as all get-out). The line does have to be drawn. And at this point, legally, a point of tangible action is where the line has been drawn. But those that hear the intention in that "free speech" loud and clear are going to recognize it, stand up, and fight for their freedoms. The freedoms that were at the heart of the creation of this country. Seeing the repressive enemy a mile away and calling them on it is part of the fight for freedom. And that sounds American to me.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 06:01 AM
link   
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

FIrst of all, let me say that I appreciate your thoughtful responses.

Second, notice that you're hypothesizing about situations that "might be" or "might have" actual reality ... which is not what I wanted to look at.

We have individuals, in this thread (I see it's been moved to "Rant" ...) who constantly mouth the platitude that Charlie was pointing to in the OP. It's very easy to claim things like "I would die for X" when death is a vague generic reality. As I've stated, the phrase very often gets tacked onto a diatribe about why some individual should not say what they've said, think what they think, etc. Further, in many ways, its use is nothing more than a standard 'appeal to emotion' that is, in actuality, trying to attack the very "Freedom" that it is pretending to support.

... again, as we saw in this thread with multiple attempts to completely restate what Charlie said, complaints about his "dangerous idea" of expressing his OWN FREEDOM OF SPEECH ... (still have to LOL on that one, in sad irony.)

Member annalisa2016 provided the closest reference to a real world situation that would meet the criteria as described, and they were the first to admit that their brave actions (putting themselves between opposing factions trying to shut each other down) really had no effect whatsoever on the relative "Freedom of Speech."

I'm not opposed to declarations of valor nor standing up for the freedoms of others. I'm opposed to empty platitudes being used fallaciously to do just the opposite.

Again, thanks for your thoughtful response.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: mamabeth

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: ketsuko

Racism and homophobia are politically correct nowadays lol

That's precisely my point and it must have flown over your head.



Just like anyone that doesn't think exactly like you is probably a racist or a homophobe...


Ah, I notice you no longer have the link in praise of the English Defence League in your signature - does that mean you no longer support outright blatant racist and homophobic groups?



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs


"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it",

Great words from the English Novelist Evelyn Beatrice Hall 1868-1956


Maybe so, shame they were nicked from Voltaire though isn't it?

ETA Actually I'll backtrack as it's by no means as black and white as I always thought it was. Hall does talk about the Voltairin principle it is based on so technically I guess it was Hall......

quoteinvestigator.com...
edit on 27-1-2016 by uncommitted because: As per ETA



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   
So racist are the scum of the earth and deserve to die a horrible death, because they sometimes call for killing others. Fine.
Nazis are the scum of the earth and deserve to die a horrible death, because they killed others. Fine.

People who don't like any of the above are good people, who should be allowed to make decisions about the bad people, because they think they are right. Hmmm.

Only problems I have is:

a] Who decides what a racist is?
Is a racist anyone who just doesn't like people who are of a different race for personal reasons? Or are racists people who go out regularly and kill foreigners? Reading through here, merely discussing immigration makes you a racist on ATS. So should I be quartered? Even though I am the most peaceful individual you could think of?

b] OP asked for Xenophobes to be put to death too. Meaning if [for whatever reason] I am against immigration [I may have a valid point but who cares], I am labeled a xenophobe and should die for that. Even if I never kill anyone and have foreign friends. All I need to do is say something against ANY foreigners, I will be fair game for death.

c] Homophobes. Gay people are killed around the world by homophobes. Now it is time to kill the homophobes instead. WHy not throw them off some towers? That'll show them. Funny thing is that a lot of homophobes are stuck in the closet. LOL, so we are going to kill more homosexuals in disguise.

d] OP clearly asks to kill the above in his OP, later on he says that he doesn't. Yeah, that is the exact kind of person who I want to decide life and death.

I am shaking my head here by the total hypocrisy of wanting people dead that you don't like. Not even racists are that bold to ask for this, otherwise they may find themselves in jail and rightly so.

Leftist Fascism.

Racists exist and there are laws against racism. Xenophobes exist and I believe they should be able to ask questions without facing the death penalty, homophobes are closet gays who I really don't care about and if they go and murder a gay, they will also go to jail. So all is already taken care of.

Get over it. This extreme hatred is just the other side of the SAME COIN you do-gooders are so adamant to eradicate [with violence]. And you don't even get it.< scary! Again, do I really want people like you to make any rational decision about who can live and who can't?


How can you educate people if you kill them before you can even find out what made them what they are?

Sounds all a bit nutty and extreme to me.


edit on 27-1-2016 by Hecate666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kali74




How on Earth does political correctness restrict you from speaking your mind?


Take Nobel Laureate Sir Timothy Hunt, who made a benign joke during one of his speeches, and was subsequently demonized to the point of losing his fellowship and job. Or the rocket scientist forced to tears because of the manufactured outrage at the shirt he wore. There was the case of the two men who were making "dongle" jokes behind a feminist, and one of them, a man with a wife and children, lost his job because of it. Ayan Hirsi Ali once made comments about Islam, and because of it, was a denied an honorary degree because a small outraged minority demanded it.

Why would anyone speak their mind if this is the consequence?


Sir Timothy Hunt said in the speech...


“Let me tell you about my trouble with girls,” the 72-year-old told the audience in South Korea. “Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry."


He was roundly (and rightly) criticised for the words, and chose to stand down. He had the freedom to say stupid things and had to accept the consequence. Free speech always comes with that caveat whether you like it or not.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs




Differing opinions are welcome, and ironically I'll defend your right to a different opinion to the death...


Isn't racist and homophobic rhetoric a differing opinion to begin with?
Whether you classify it as hate-speech or not is kind of redundant to the principle of freedom of expression and freedom of speech.
If you hold those principles dear it's irrelevant what the person is saying or doing as long as there not violating someone's autonomy.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: Kali74

Lawsuits...my son was threatened with a lawsuit for something he said
on another site.


If what he said could be judged as slanderous that's his fault - free speech in most countries doesn't absolve you of the consequences of what you said. To think otherwise, frankly, is stupid.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted




He was roundly (and rightly) criticised for the words, and chose to stand down. He had the freedom to say stupid things and had to accept the consequence. Free speech always comes with that caveat whether you like it or not.


The consequence was to be tried by a kangaroo court hate mob, who harangued and bellowed their humorless inidgnation at the doors of his employment and memberships, demanding he be ostracized and stripped of his honors.

Know who else had the freedom to say stupid things? The folks at Charlie Hebdo, who was tried and deemed guilty in the exact same matter. They had the freedom to say stupid things, and according to you, they have to accept those consequences.

No one should accept the consequences of mob justice, because it is unjust.




top topics



 
23
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join