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.
Can I walk up to complete strangers and tell them that they cannot enter a building?
originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: DBCowboy
Can I walk up to complete strangers and tell them that they cannot enter a building?
You can tell them such verbally. That isn't against the law. Actually stopping them with force is against the law.
It has nothing to do with BLM it has everything to do with what the law says.
originally posted by: BlueAjah
Interrupting the democratic election process and intimidating voters from supporting who they wish and hearing the positions of those who are legally running for office goes way beyond limiting free speech.
The Voters Rights Act of 1965 addressed many issues that existed at that time, when people were physically restricted and discriminated in many ways from their right to vote.
Maybe there needs to be a new law addressing these issues today.
Peaceful protesting is fine, but screaming in peoples faces and threatening them, spitting, pulling peoples feet on stairs, putting people down for having differing views - are surely against the basic rights assured in the democratic process.
If people can not support and vote for who they choose, without fear of reprisals and threats of violence, then our entire system will not work.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: BlueAjah
Stopping people from voting has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech.
What happened in Chicago had nothing to do with stopping people from voting.
What happened in Chicago had nothing to do with the First Amendment.
originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Grambler
Certainly there are laws against blocking roads and such, but the first amendment is solely designed to limit the powers of the government and that is it. So when people correct others by pointing out that it isn't a first amendment issue that does not imply that those people are not breaking the law nor does it imply that their actions are condoned it is simply pointing out that the amendment does not speak to that issue.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
If you are an employer and your employee puts something on social media that is controversial, insulting, prejudiced, etc., that employer has the right to fire the employee for potentially causing problems for the company.
If you are a consumer and a company spokesperson makes a public comment that you find offensive, you have the right to boycott said company (and encourage others to boycott), even if it means the company will go out of business.
If you are on social media and you post something that others find insulting, prejudiced, etc., people have the right to respond with their opinion on what you posted, and you may lose friends and make enemies.
Sure, you have the right to say it, but you don't have the right to zero consequences from saying it.
The whole point of the First amendment was to prevent a government from arresting, torturing, or killing someone who said something against the government - not to keep someone's job or company afloat or to keep friends.