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: 4
31
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

There is no "IF" in Trump inciting violence ... it's on video recording, repeatedly.

Further, the argument here is that Trump and his supporters have greater freedom of speech rights than those who oppose (for good reasons) his violent, hateful rhetoric.




posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Medicator
The only freedom of speech I wont defend is The Westboro Baptist Church. Look at what Farrakhan and Al Sharpton say at their speeches, 'kill crackers" ,,,do we try to shut the down ? Trump mentions the word "LOVE" hundreds times more than Bernie and Hillary put together,


Right, because he claims that X group "loves" him and his magnificence?

Give me a break.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You need to see some video of the anti Trump protesters and get back to me. I'm not even voting for Trump and I find this disgusting. Protest outside and don't sneak people in to cause problems. Anyone who agrees with free speech should find this a no brainer.

sad state our country is in that you have to disrupt a private event in order to force you opinions to be heard. The people with the mind set that they are morally superior to others is a very scary type of person.

This isn't surprising though, the new way to be SJW is to shut down the opposing argument by calling them bigots or racist, sexist etc.


The left would be crying abuse if protesters infiltrated a Sanders rally



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Gryphon66

You need to see some video of the anti Trump protesters and get back to me. I'm not even voting for Trump and I find this disgusting. Protest outside and don't sneak people in to cause problems. Anyone who agrees with free speech should find this a no brainer.

sad state our country is in that you have to disrupt a private event in order to force you opinions to be heard. The people with the mind set that they are morally superior to others is a very scary type of person.

This isn't surprising though, the new way to be SJW is to shut down the opposing argument by calling them bigots or racist, sexist etc.


The left would be crying abuse if protesters infiltrated a Sanders rally


First of all, I have viewed more videos, read more eyewitness accounts, et. al, than have been presented in any of the myriad threads here regarding Trump. I have stated, repeatedly, that I do not agree with trespass, violence, blocking roadways, etc. The assertion that protesters are a unified front of terrorists is ridiculous.

The fact that people of many different philosophies and group affiliations all see Trump (particularly in his direct and public avocation of POLITICAL VIOLENCE) as something to be opposed by any means is understandable.

Bernie actually responded to Trump's threat to send his followers to his events ... "Send them, maybe they will learn something."

Political violence is not an option, and was a rarity in American politics until Donald J. Trump came on the scene; now it's "the new normal."

That is what any "thinking person" should be repulsed by ... not the downstream responses of others to this Fascist SOB.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

We should round up all the blacks and kill them.
Are you obligated to defend that?
After all I have a right to say it right?



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Wrong again.

Inciting violence is a crime and Trump has not been charged, let alone convicted.
edit on 21-3-2016 by Deny Arrogance because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: Gryphon66

Wrong again.

Inciting violence is a crime and Trump has not been charged, let alone convicted yet.


There, fixed it for you.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: Gryphon66

Wrong again.

Inciting violence is a crime and Trump has not been charged, let alone convicted.


I'm sure a lot of people in this very thread have used illegal drugs, which is a crime. How many have been charged for it, much less convicted? And if I steal something from a nearby store, am I committing a crime if I never get caught or convicted for it?

Is it a crime if you commit the act, or only if you're convicted of committing the act? Because if it's only a crime if you're convicted of it, then most Wall Street bankers, politicians, and members of organized crime rings aren't criminals either. After all, most of them haven't actually been convicted of anything.

By the way, I understand the point you're making. I just want to emphasize that committing a crime and being convicted of a crime are 2 completely different things.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

That is pretty big "IF" though.

You confidently stated there was no "IF" about it.

Maybe you should "fix" your own post before presuming to "fix" mine.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi




Freedom of speech is upheld as long as the government stays out of it.


Freedom of Speech is not the same as the first amendment.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant




By the way, I understand the point you're making. I just want to emphasize that committing a crime and being convicted of a crime are 2 completely different things.


So is guilt or innocence, one of which has to be proven according to due process, not at the whims of some online kangaroo court.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: Gryphon66

That is pretty big "IF" though.

You confidently stated there was no "IF" about it.

Maybe you should "fix" your own post before presuming to "fix" mine.



Actually, there's no way to "fix" your post. You've just said that the fact that Trump has not been charged with inciting violence proves that he doesn't and/or hasn't incited violence directly and repeatedly at his rallies, which is patently ridiculous.


edit on 21-3-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




Actually, there's no way to "fix" your post. You've just said that the fact that Trump has not be charged with inciting violence proves that he doesn't and/or hasn't incited violence directly and repeatedly at his rallies, which is patently ridiculous.


Advocating violence is protected by the first amendment as long it doesn't lead to "immanent lawless action". That's what you'll have to prove. Until then...



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66




Actually, there's no way to "fix" your post. You've just said that the fact that Trump has not be charged with inciting violence proves that he doesn't and/or hasn't incited violence directly and repeatedly at his rallies, which is patently ridiculous.


Advocating violence is protected by the first amendment as long it doesn't lead to "immanent lawless action". That's what you'll have to prove. Until then...


As to his incitement leading to illegal assault (aka imminent lawless action, vis a vis Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), watch any of several videos posted in virtually every "Trump protest" thread.

Trump advocates or incites violence from the podium, violence happens. Do you dispute this?



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




Trump advocates or incites violence from the podium, violence happens. Do you dispute this?


I haven't seen these incidents. Can you oblige me or point me somewhere I can see for myself?



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66




Trump advocates or incites violence from the podium, violence happens. Do you dispute this?


I haven't seen these incidents. Can you oblige me or point me somewhere I can see for myself?


Sure. One of thousands: Donald Trump Says He Doesn't Condone Violence. Footage Says Otherwise.

Video available at link.

Protest Turns Violent at Donald Trump Rally in Orlando, FL (3-5-16) - Youtube

John Oliver "Trump and Violence" - Youtube
edit on 21-3-2016 by Gryphon66 because: ETc



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Trump keeps saying he’ll bring people together.
So he will bring people together to do what?

Apparently to Fight

Also, another point.


Who has denied Trump's right to speak.


In Chicago it was his choice to cancel that speech. The authorities didn't tell him to do that.

He, as usual lied and said they did.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

After watching those videos in full, yes I deny that Trump has incited violence according to the law, and is fully within the bounds of free speech.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66

After watching those videos in full, yes I deny that Trump has incited violence according to the law, and is fully within the bounds of free speech.


At least I believe you when you say you've watched them.

I watch them, and hundreds of similar recordings, and it is more than clear that the man is inciting violence from his podium, and violence happens. Over and over and over.

However, I can respectfully disagree with your conclusions as I believe you actually gave it thought.

To me, the facts are obvious.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




I watch them, and hundreds of similar recordings, and it is more than clear that the man is inciting violence from his podium, and violence happens. Over and over and over.

However, I can respectfully disagree with your conclusions as I believe you actually gave it thought.

To me, the facts are obvious.


Perhaps according to your definition of inciting violence. But in the realm of law, he is not inciting violence, and that fact to me is obvious.




top topics



 
31
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join