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.

 

Poll for Left Leaners

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 03:53 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

JinMI,

In my opinion, someone ought to believe in what they say, if they deem it worth saying. If they believe in it, they should keep saying it until they are knocked down physically, and if possible, stand up and keep saying it. Freedom of speech, like all rights, is NOT given to the individual, but possessed by them. Even in nations where no written right exists to speak freely, human beings there DO have that right, whether the law of the land recognises it or not, and people from lands like that take INSANE risks to get the truth out. Therefore, whether under assault or at perfect peace, those who are living in a nation where freedom of speech IS protected by law, ought to be unprepared to cease to indulge that right, in the face of any threat, assault, injury, or even the threat of death. If they do not believe in their ideology solidly enough to risk their life for it, then what worth has that ideology?

Its a tricky one, because I do not believe a person ought to be under threat for exercise of their rights, but I also believe that a person has a duty to only take on those causes which they would be happy to die advocating for.




posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 03:56 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Well said.

If they truly cared to get the information out, my thoughts is that they would face the crowd and say what they wanted. Now, that would only incite more violence and who knows how many would be involved but it certainly would put free speech as the term and where it came from, into perspective.

I've yet to see any of these speakers offer up a public debate stage.......



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 03:58 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

These are strangely specific questions. Why not focus on the vast majority of protestors (who aren't violent) or the ones who are speaking out against the violence? I'll answer them anyway, though.


Do you see any positive effect coming from the riots?

In general, no. I think my other post describes my feelings on the specifics.

However, this question asks if I see "any" positive effects, which implies possibilities. It's possible that many of the peaceful protestors saw the violence, were turned off by it, and will decide to more aggressively spread the methods of nonviolent activism. It's also possible that some of the violent ones will be outed as agent provocateurs (like at some of the Ferguson protests), which will make the non-violent protestors more vigilant in calling out the people who have violent intentions. So yeah, it's possible that something positive can come from this.



Also, do you see the riots as stifling of free speech due to the speaker needing to leave due to safety concerns?

Stifling free speech? No. Universities and organizations can allow or reject any speaker they want for whatever reason they want, as long as they don't break any laws in the process. Speakers have no constitutional right to speak at specific events. If specific speakers want to give a specific speech, they're still free to do so online, at other venues, in written statements, etc.

It's like arguing that a concert venue is stifling my right to free speech by refusing to let me perform on their stage.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 04:17 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant




I disagree that protests are the best way to solve political issues.


I think that the left would be better off if they used your advice.

The violence drives a wedge, and it is positioned closer to the far left than the middle.

Honey will draw more votes than vinegar.

The violent acts just diminishes any hope of widespread support.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 04:21 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex

But in rioting your just contributing to instability.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 04:24 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

The difference is, they allowed him to be there...

It did infact stop his freedom of speech and infact those of his attendees who agree w him , to attend the delivery of that message , because he had to be evacuated under threat of violence by those who did not want him there.

I understand what you are trying to say, but in this case that is not what happened ....



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 04:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: JinMI

I don't condone it but I do understand it , it is born of frustration and fear.


Actually, a situation like below would be reason for "frustration and fear"'

The democratic, peaceful, transition of power?

Not so much......

ETA: To stay on topic I obviously disagree.

Perspective people

edit on 2 3 2017 by stosh64 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 04:26 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

How can you blame the entire left wing for the actions of individuals? The vast majority of left wingers don't even go to protests, otherwise we'd have 150 million or so people protesting every time. And out of the left wingers who do protest, the vast majority of them don't riot. Otherwise the massive Women's Rights marches would've been a violent nationwide uprising.

It's the same reason that all gun owners shouldn't be blamed for the actions of the minority of gun owners who actually commit gun-related crimes.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 04:30 AM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

It's still not stifling free speech though. "Free speech" is a constitutional right. No citizen has a constitutional right to speak at a specific event or venue.

If anything, it can be argued that they breached his contract to speak there. But 1) that would depend on the wording of his contract, assuming he has one w/them; and 2) it would be a civil issue to be taken up in a civil court (aka a lawsuit), not a criminal case to be taken up in criminal court.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 04:30 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy


To be fair not all of them were violent, and those that weren't so have the right to protest in order to have their opinions heard, whether I agree w their opinions or not.

Protesting is a vital part of our freedoms of expression and speech here in the US

I DO AGREE however there are more constructive ways of having themselves heard

Perhaps a debate between milo and a person of their choice, or if a debate is too volatile , perhaps a "townhall" type setting where all from both sides can convene with speakers of their choice , and express their views

I do agree that shouting at each other only leaves both sides deaf and mute...

I've been trying to express this to my conservative friends as well

but it seems since Trumps presidency they are too focused at this time on "sticking" it to the opposition rather than constructive dialog, which will only make things worse



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 04:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: enlightenedservant




I disagree that protests are the best way to solve political issues.


I think that the left would be better off if they used your advice.

The violence drives a wedge, and it is positioned closer to the far left than the middle.

Honey will draw more votes than vinegar.

The violent acts just diminishes any hope of widespread support.


I think the wedge was put in place when Trump supporters started to be labeled racists, bigots, etc. all because we hold different political views. It seemed after Hillary made her own devisive deplorable comment is when a clear line was drawn. I know not all leftists believe that crap, but it sure did become a trend.

I'm unsure how the rest of Trump supporters feel, but before I start giving the left any credibility again. I think they would have to drop all this racist rhetoric and quit with all the violence first. Until then there message seems childish to me and is blanketed with a lot of negativity.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 04:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: JinMI

I don't condone it but I do understand it , it is born of frustration and fear.


I MIGHT could understand this if there was a genuine reason for these people to get destructive , or if I actually believed the ones getting violent we're doing it for some sort of real opposition to the politics at hand

However I do not believe this, I believe the people committing these crimes are only doing it because it's an opportunity to break, destroy, and otherwise wreak havoc under a certain degree of anonymity.

They see an opportunity and are taking it, and if it causes even more riotous behavior because of it , then it's even better in their eyes.

They just want chaos, they don't care what the cause is

This is occupy wall street 2.0 on steroids.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 04:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

It's still not stifling free speech though. "Free speech" is a constitutional right. No citizen has a constitutional right to speak at a specific event or venue.

If anything, it can be argued that they breached his contract to speak there. But 1) that would depend on the wording of his contract, assuming he has one w/them; and 2) it would be a civil issue to be taken up in a civil court (aka a lawsuit), not a criminal case to be taken up in criminal court.


They didn't "breach" his contract

He was removed by his security detail because of the threat of violence , because of the violence that and destruction that was happening ...

You seem to be missing that part ....



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 04:34 AM
link   
a reply to: rollanotherone


Well so far the pattern has been the same...
The problem is since OWS the climate and violence has been getting progressively worse...



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 04:36 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

The point is THAT is your party...How and why would you support that? The Democrat party and it's followes have thrown America into chaos...It's all rather scary. You really are giving the rest of us limited options in how to deal with you. I vote for the best candidate. Those tend to be libertarian candidates but in the end I will vote the best running. The libertrain party really let all of us down with Gary Johnson. Such a sad unintelligent tool.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 04:42 AM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

(sigh) I'm not sure if you've ever performed onstage before, but contracts to do so will include a lot of provisions, such as inciting violence and more. Venues usually withhold the right to end any show/speech/etc at their own discretion.

A good manager (who makes the arrangement with the venue) will try to include guarantees of pay, guarantees of minimal amounts of security on hand, etc. Those managers will also try to include the ability to end a show/speech/etc at their client's discretion without financial penalties, which is usually what happens when an artist or comedian storms offstage. Both the venue and the performer's manager will negotiate financial liability & compensation in the case of the event ending prematurely.

I don't know if this dude had a contract and clearly haven't seen the details of said contract if he has one. So it's hard for anyone to credibly speculate on that part, hence my response.

ETA: In fact, some venues will either outright refuse to allow specific performers or speakers because of this. I'm not sure if you remember the old rap days where "Tear Da Club Up" type songs were big, but back then, many of those groups couldn't perform without special insurance because of the risk of damage to the venue, violence & crimes in the crowd, etc. I've been out of the biz for a while now, so I don't know how much or how little that has changed.
edit on 3-2-2017 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 04:46 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I made my living for many years being on stage....

The part you seem to be willfully ignoring is the fact that he didn't HAVE to leave

He was removed BY HIS SECURTMITY because of the violence and the worry for his safety...


Effectively stifling his freedom of speech , through violence

I don't know how else to keep saying the same thing where you'll understand.

I honestly feel like you're willfully ignoring the facts surrounding the incident



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 04:47 AM
link   
a reply to: odinsway

So you're another person who blames everyone affiliated with an ideology for the crimes of a few within that ideology? Just remember that turnabout's fair play.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 04:49 AM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Events can be canceled at the discretion of either side depending on their contract. What part of that don't you understand? That literally has nothing to do with free speech. Unless you've seen the agreed upon terms between him, the venue, and whoever was contracted to do security there, then you're simply speculating.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 04:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Events can be canceled at the discretion of either side depending on their contract. What part of that don't you understand? That literally has nothing to do with free speech. Unless you've seen the agreed upon terms between him, the venue, and whoever was contracted to do security there, then you're simply speculating.


Except that is not what happened, you're talking hypotheticals and what may or may not be in a contract...I'm talking what actually happened at UC Berkeley
edit on 2/3/2017 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join