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.

 

You need to defend Trump's freedom of speech even if you don't agree with what he's saying

page: 2
31
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

I don't condone violence against anyone, and I'll allow him any everyone else to say whatever they want, but in no way, shape or form do I need to defend his freedom of speech. I don't violate anyone's freedom of speech, and I don't think I've ever been in a situation where I've had to defend anyone's freedom of speech.




posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

The government has not stifled his ability to speak therefore the 1st amendment is not an issue here.

However, the spirit of free speech should be upheld by all Americans and what has been going on with the Trump protesters is going against that spirit. Protesting is one thing but many of them are blocking access. I know for a fact that if Tea Party folks blocked access physically to Planned Parenthood or to a Bernie rally, I would be pretty upset.

While I love people standing together in large numbers to oppose Trump, there needs to be some adjustment in the nature of the demonstrations, for sure. Shutting down his rally just makes him look even more like a martyr in the eyes of all his Trumpkins.

In this regard, shame on us. We need to tone it down, for sure.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: seagull

....

He is painfully unfamiliar with the psychology of crowds, and almost everything we see in response is a result of that ignorance.


I don't think so. I think he is disturbingly well-versed in the psychology of crowds.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman




There are people that are threatening him and telling to drop out or to not speak in public. Clearly violating his freedom of speech and freedom of expression.


Trump is a big boy with a lot of money, influence and power. Telling him to not speak only spurs him on

He's free to say whatever he wants

He practically owns Twitter - and the press hangs on his every word

How has his freedom been violated? Are we not allowed to tell him what we think of him?



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: dogstar23

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: seagull

....

He is painfully unfamiliar with the psychology of crowds, and almost everything we see in response is a result of that ignorance.


I don't think so. I think he is disturbingly well-versed in the psychology of crowds.



I was giving him the benefit of the doubt; if you are right (and I think you are) his actions are criminal.

Free speech doesn't include inciting others to violence and to riot.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman




There are people that are threatening him and telling to drop out or to not speak in public. Clearly violating his freedom of speech and freedom of expression.


Trump is a big boy with a lot of money, influence and power. Telling him to not speak only spurs him on

He's free to say whatever he wants

He practically owns Twitter - and the press hangs on his every word

How has his freedom been violated? Are we not allowed to tell him what we think of him?


It seems that kicking, sucker-punching, and yelling are only "free speech" when Trump supporters do it.

I say that is a double standard. I say no one's "free speech" is being violated.

I say that Mr. Trump is a bloviating, vile, wind-bag whose ego is so brittle and fragile (as most bullies) that he cannot bear to be seen for what he is. He stands in front of crowds and incites them to violence in furtherance of his political goals.

What was that definition of terrorism again?



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

I respectfully disagree, especially with this part:


If we are a free country we have to let people have freedom of expression and freedom of speech.

This country doesn't have freedom of speech. That's why governments classify information, so people legally have to shut up about certain things. That's why we have libel and slander laws, so people can't intentionally spread lies about others. That's also why death threats, terrorist threats, and other threats are crimes. As are other forms of speech, like inciting riots, encouraging crimes, going on social media and saying you're going to do certain things, etc. Even soliciting prostitution and drug sales are crimes, even though there's no victim involved in either situation.

Businesses can't say whatever they want to customers because of anti-fraud laws. Their employees also can't legally profit off of or share inside information because of insider trading laws. But businesses also love limits to free speech, such as copyright laws and trade secrets. Become a big time corporate or government whistleblower and see just how little freedom of speech you really have.

So nope, I'm not defending Trump for anything. And I'm not defending anyone else's "right" to threaten me or my family, either. And how many of the people saying we should defend his crap speech say we should also defend the hateful rhetoric of extremist preachers and Imams too? Actually, it doesn't matter if you support their "freedom" to incite violence and oppression. Because "freedom of speech" doesn't come with a requirement for me to listen to your words, either.

edit on 20-3-2016 by enlightenedservant because: clarified a line



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You are conflating the freedom of speech with the first ammendment.

The freedom of speech is an unalienable right every human is born with.

The first ammendment prevents the government from passing laws that would deny that right to citizens.

Property rights also come in to play but basically public space belongs to all citizens so all are free to exercise freedom of speech.

Whoever owns private property has a right to control who has freedom of speech and assembly on thier own property. Tresspassing on private property and interrupting or preventing the owner's from speaking is a violation of the owner's right to free speech.


edit on 20-3-2016 by Deny Arrogance because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr


No presidential candidate allows press to enter rallies. You seriously know nothing about politics. Rallies are for supporters who pay to be there if the press wants to go buy a ticket and by the way some have. Rallies are for supporters press vobfrences are for the press. And supporters can't attend them either.


Wow. Such confidence from somebody who is so completely wrong.

See this:



That's the media pen at the Feb 8 Trump rally in Manchester, NH. How about this:



That's the media pen at the March 11 Trump rally that was canceled in Chicago, IL.

Tickets for his rallies are free and can be reserved online at Eventbrite.


You seriously know nothing about politics.


You should perhaps consider an apology. You also don't really seem to be aware of what is taking place. Were you not aware of the Secret Service chokeslamming incident?

Vice - Why It’s No Surprise a Journalist Got Choked at a Donald Trump Rally


Since the beginning of his campaign, Donald Trump has repeatedly called the media "scum" and the "absolute worst" during his speeches, taking visible glee in turning the press into his personal punching bag. On Monday, however, the verbal attacks escalated into an actual physical altercation: A Secret Service agent grabbed a journalist by the throat and slammed him to the ground after the man tried to photograph protesters getting kicked out of a Trump rally in Virginia.

The incident was shocking for many people — but it wasn't a surprise if you've attended enough of his campaign rallies as a member of the press. After going to Trump events on the campaign trail in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, I've learned to accept that uncomfortable encounters with Trump's security and campaign staff are a routine hazard of the job. Trump is the only presidential candidate whose rallies feature a specific area in the back where journalists are corralled and not permitted to leave. Other candidates have areas designated for the media, but reporters are free to mingle in the crowd to interview people. Leaving the press pen at a Trump rally comes with its own risk, as today's altercation demonstrated.

edit on 2016-3-20 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Deny Arrogance

I am conflating it??? On the contrary, go to any thread here about Trump and you will find "the First Amendment" mentioned over and over again.

So you're contending that free speech is a "natural right" then? Well, at least that is a slightly better tactic than usual.

Let's see. Where is this natural right encoded then? What are the parameters? By what or whose definition?

If, in the normal sense, "natural rights" arise from a God (any version) I believe you would find that His representatives disagree with you utterly, as there are all sorts of restrictions about what one can say (and do and think) in that regard.

If natural rights arise from the organically based realities of the world, a "natural right" is limited exactly by the forces of competition ... i.e. your right extends just as far as and no further than you can enforce/protect it against others.

If this "freedom of speech" means that you or I can say anything we like any time we like ... I'm sure you can see that is patently ridiculous. Go tell the 6'8" guy you think his baby is ugly. Do you have a right to say it? Sure.

Can you take the consequences?

Propery and freedom are philosophical opposites. The idea of property is an exclusion, it is the antithesis of "freedom."

To "own" property ... outside of the parameters of our governmental systems (as you are claiming here that these natural rights are apolitical) ... is nothing more than a show of force ... you can only hold your property if no one can take it from you, at least in this idealized system you are imagining.

The fact that you use the phrasing "has the right to control freedom of speech" is absurd. Speech is either free or it isn't.

If it's being controlled, it isn't.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

" in this instance, started firmly with Trump and his people. They are the instigators. "

So , Donald Trump is now working for George Soros ?



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Stop voting for democrats and republicans.You only get bad candidates.

The people will choose. A lot of people will vote for him because of wait he's saying. A lot of people will vote against him because of what he's saying. What group is larger?

Will the american public reject him based on his comments on muslims and mexico/mexicans?
Or will they endorse him?

It is up to us to choose our leadership. We get the government we deserve. Hillary,Cruz, and Trump.
Come on. We can do better than that.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I am not contending anything.

Jefferson made it clear in the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The “unalienable rights” explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights include, but are not limited to, the rights of free speech, religion, the right to keep and bear arms, etc.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: Gryphon66

I am not contending anything.

Jefferson made it clear in the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The “unalienable rights” explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights include, but are not limited to, the rights of free speech, religion, the right to keep and bear arms, etc.


So, wait ... these natural or unalienable rights ... they are enshrined in our founding documents or they aren't?

You're contradicting yourself here.

Also, so you get to enumerate the "unalienable rights" that Jefferson was talking about? Is it a coincidence that the first two you mention are enshrined in the First and Second Amendments ... which you are arguing, or attempting to argue, have nothing to do with the rights and/or freedoms you're espousing?

Do these rights arise from the American system of government or not?

Also, by your logic from the Declaration ... Jefferson SPECFICIALLY says that these rights are "the pursuit of happiness" ... so, if the Trump protesters see the man, and his policies and his followers as THREATS to their "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" ... why then, in your logic as they are endowed with these apolitical free-wheeling "rights" they can do anything they need to in protection of those rights, yes?

Including protesting, trespassing, blocking traffic? That's their NATURAL RIGHT, right?

Which side of this are you arguing again???



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Gryphon66

" in this instance, started firmly with Trump and his people. They are the instigators. "

So , Donald Trump is now working for George Soros ?


Come again?




posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You are being ridiculous and have absolutely no understanding of the constitution.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 11:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: Gryphon66

You are being ridiculous and have absolutely no understanding of the constitution.



I'm being ridiculous? Because I pointed out that your whole argument to me is that I was conflating the "freedom of speech" with the First Amendment and the limitations on American government, and then proceeded to invoke the Declaration (a fundamental part of our organic law) and enumerated the rights of the First and Second Amendments in your argument?

LOL, it's not me that has a problem understanding anything at all. It seems you might be out of your comfort zone here.

edit on 20-3-2016 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 12:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You stated:

'The "freedom of speech" is a guarantee that THE GOVERNMENT will not pass laws to contravene speech.'

I stated that "freedom of speech" exists outside the constitution/first ammendment as a part of every person's unalienable right to liberty.

The constitution does not give that right. The government does not give that right.

All people are endowed with that unalienable right.

Then I pointed out that the Bill of Rights merely clarifies and emphasizes that the government can not pass laws taking away that unalienable right or other unalienable rights.

Instead of admitting your error or thanking me for the clarifiaction, you tried to baffle me and everybody else with BS, fallacies and nonsense.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 12:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: Gryphon66

I am not contending anything.

Jefferson made it clear in the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The “unalienable rights” explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights include, but are not limited to, the rights of free speech, religion, the right to keep and bear arms, etc.


So, wait ... these natural or unalienable rights ... they are enshrined in our founding documents or they aren't?

You're contradicting yourself here.

Also, so you get to enumerate the "unalienable rights" that Jefferson was talking about? Is it a coincidence that the first two you mention are enshrined in the First and Second Amendments ... which you are arguing, or attempting to argue, have nothing to do with the rights and/or freedoms you're espousing?

Do these rights arise from the American system of government or not?

Rights are limits to force/power.It is based on trust. Only government has more force and power than a individual person does. An almost near monopoly of force.


Also, by your logic from the Declaration ... Jefferson SPECFICIALLY says that these rights are "the pursuit of happiness" ... so, if the Trump protesters see the man, and his policies and his followers as THREATS to their "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" ... why then, in your logic as they are endowed with these apolitical free-wheeling "rights" they can do anything they need to in protection of those rights, yes?

You have no right to violent coercion or threat of violence. You have no right to offensive aggression on another human being.

Including protesting, trespassing, blocking traffic? That's their NATURAL RIGHT, right?
Protesting is fine.Trespassing is up to the property owners to enforce.Blocking traffic is up to the city/community to enforce. Violent coercion is not protesting.
Which side of this are you arguing again???



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Deny Arrogance

I haven't made an error and don't need any clarification from you. You can blather on about your bafflement if you must.

You tried to cite me with not understanding what "freedom of speech" means. You fallaciously tried to suggest that I am the one conflating the "freedom of speech" that so many Trump supporters are crying that they are being deprived of with the freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment. You did this by trying to cite the Declaration of Independence, which is a cornerstone of the American organic law. When called on your failed mummery, you're just retreating to ignorance.

If the right to free speech is a natural right, then it is secured not by law, but by our own actions and our own being. I pointed that out to you. Your problem is, you can't seem to follow your own argument. Don't try to hang that on me.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join