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.

 

Freedom of speech, what does it mean to you.

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   


"Make no laws whatever concerning speech, and speech will be free; so soon as you make a declaration on paper that speech shall be free, you will have a hundred lawyers proving that "freedom does not mean abuse, nor liberty license," and they will define freedom out of existence." - Voltairine de Cleyre




posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 08:25 PM
link   
I find it amusing how so many people equate freedom of speech with the First Amendment. The First Amendment is merely a restraint on government. It has little to do with the actual meaning of a freedom of speech. I have also noticed in recent years this idea that freedom of speech should not be free from consequences. Who decides these consequences? If I say something that pisses off redheads can my life be destroyed just because they don't like what I say? I'm not talking about defamation or hate speech. I'm just talking about a derogatory comment against someone or a group of someones. Should person's life be ruined? Should their career be ruined? Should they be ruined publicly because they say something that you don't like? I guess that depends upon how you view free speech. If you think somebody should have their speech restricted or if they don't restrict their own speech they should be ruined publicly because of it I think that says a lot about what kind of person you are.
edit on 3-3-2017 by Arizonaguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

A free society is one where you have the space to think your own thoughts, own your property, have your own privacy etc. Once you enter a state of nature morality shifts to survival. It can lead to a breakdown in the social contract.

If society becomes so idiotic that your constantly assaulted by screaming idiots it isn't necessarily free either. People should be educated as to what a social contract means. That way they can regulate themselves and if they don't the others in society will abandon you because of your stupid behaviour.



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Arizonaguy

There shouldn't be rules and people should have a thick skin, but yes you should also be a countable for your actions and what you say.

If you say I hate Mexicans you should also accept you may get a boycott at your store.

Some people don't get the only reason you don't get stab ed in your sleep is from a social contract we enter to allow protection larger than a single family can do. If you start pissing everyone off you should expect the contract may no longer apply.

These things are all philosophy. They don't actually exist unless we say they do



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Put simply, it means the ability to examine and debate ideas. To search their truths and falsehoods, to deny a dark, hiding place for lies.

Censorship of speech merely promotes ignorance by limiting debate to one particular side.



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   
it is 0330 so I am off to sleep, lot of great replies and some deep thinking going on, I hope it continues..

I will freely admit I am a simple guy and sometimes the philosophy goes right past me, but what I was taught as a kid... I have rights yup... my rights last right up until I am infringing other peoples rights, there is a balance that must be stuck for a civilization to remain free, a level of respect that must be there or you begin to lose the civility that we supposedly have.

I hope people continue to talk about it, think about it and above all discuss it...

We need to return to the days of sitting down and talking out are problems, and finding that level of mutual respect for one another, it will not be easy but if we do not try we are done as a nation, this is not a left or right thing (yea I was a little hot with the OP, we all have our faults) this is an American thing (I say that cause I am an American and do not pretend to speak for other nations).

we must revisit the concept that left or right does not matter... both sides are American first, which means we have common ground, and with common ground we can re-build the relationships that will let us right the ship and find a better path forward.

That is all I got.. night night



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

Well said, nice prose, and your not as simple as you think.

Thank you for the thread and the ability to communicate non partisan ideas of unity.



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Well buckle up folks i guess we aren't finished yet. There is a lot of chatter on the usual sites about violent anti-Trump protesters planning to attack pro-Trump groups in Berkeley again. Antifa apparently will be joining too. If these violent knuckleheads kill someone during the "peaceful" protests i expect a lot of backlash coming their way. Maybe this time the police is going to arrest them before it escalates but i have my doubts. I do hope that some heads will roll if they are told to stand down again.



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 10:08 PM
link   



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 01:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

The problem with rights is that they are everyone else's duty to provide them. Your freedom of speech is my duty to let you speak.



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 01:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Irishhaf

The problem with rights is that they are everyone else's duty to provide them. Your freedom of speech is my duty to let you speak.





posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 05:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

Freedom of speech is just that. The right to speak ones mind.

It does not however, give a person the right to suggest genocide, to suggest torturing a person or a people based on arbitrary metrics, it does not give a person the right to threaten peoples well being, to remove their anonymity and by so doing cause a threat to their well being. It does not give a person the right to speak falsehoods under oath, nor to cause harm to a persons safety by inciting hatred, inciting others to act on hatred.

All it does, is give a person the right to express themselves. It is their responsibility to ensure that expression is not a threat to the well being of others, lest that speech turn into incitement.



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 06:18 AM
link   
To punch Richard Spencer in the face during an interview. (lel)


Seriously, to speak and communicate what you want but to expect consequences if some of what you say offends the liberty of others.



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 06:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

Pretty much this.





posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 07:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: syrinx high priest

That is what Jefferson seemed to imply was most important.


Agree, tyranny is not just troops and guns, it is also controlling the press and thought and ideas. Too often I see this important right confused with just running your mouth to anyone about anything and hiding behind the constitution. Jefferson was not concerned with rowdy pub debates, he was concerned about how King George would Jail loud opposition.



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Freedom of speech but not freedom from the consequences of speech is a contradiction not worth entertaining. Freedom of speech means exactly the freedom from the consequences of speech.



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Freedom of speech but not freedom from the consequences of speech is a contradiction not worth entertaining. Freedom of speech means exactly the freedom from the consequences of speech.



Finally... someone sane.



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
I find it amusing how so many people equate freedom of speech with the First Amendment. The First Amendment is merely a restraint on government. It has little to do with the actual meaning of a freedom of speech. I have also noticed in recent years this idea that freedom of speech should not be free from consequences. Who decides these consequences? If I say something that pisses off redheads can my life be destroyed just because they don't like what I say? I'm not talking about defamation or hate speech. I'm just talking about a derogatory comment against someone or a group of someones. Should person's life be ruined? Should their career be ruined? Should they be ruined publicly because they say something that you don't like? I guess that depends upon how you view free speech. If you think somebody should have their speech restricted or if they don't restrict their own speech they should be ruined publicly because of it I think that says a lot about what kind of person you are.


Precisely.

It is en vogue now for someone or a gaggle of bullying someone's to hound people out of their jobs for things they say and do on their own time.

And when you call them on it, their defense is "He/She was free to say it, but not free from the consequences."

The implicit message there is that there really isn't any freedom of speech or opinion if it deviates from what a big enough group of bullies would prefer to believe.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 05:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
I find it amusing how so many people equate freedom of speech with the First Amendment. The First Amendment is merely a restraint on government. It has little to do with the actual meaning of a freedom of speech. I have also noticed in recent years this idea that freedom of speech should not be free from consequences. Who decides these consequences? If I say something that pisses off redheads can my life be destroyed just because they don't like what I say? I'm not talking about defamation or hate speech. I'm just talking about a derogatory comment against someone or a group of someones. Should person's life be ruined? Should their career be ruined? Should they be ruined publicly because they say something that you don't like? I guess that depends upon how you view free speech. If you think somebody should have their speech restricted or if they don't restrict their own speech they should be ruined publicly because of it I think that says a lot about what kind of person you are.


Precisely.

It is en vogue now for someone or a gaggle of bullying someone's to hound people out of their jobs for things they say and do on their own time.

And when you call them on it, their defense is "He/She was free to say it, but not free from the consequences."

The implicit message there is that there really isn't any freedom of speech or opinion if it deviates from what a big enough group of bullies would prefer to believe.








1s and 0s, yes or no.... either you have it or you dont. The minute you make it ok not to allow people to say "X".... inevitably that list will grow.... word by word..... nudge here and a nudge there.... Until believe it or not you are not even allowed to say something like....America First.... or islamic terrorism and one day you will wake up and look around wondering what the heck happened...... that not all that long ago you could say what ever you wanted..... and now you are seeing some guy getting arrested for hate speech

edit on 5-3-2017 by Zimnydran because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf


I believe in free speech with all my heart, anyone should be able to say whatever is on their mind whenever they want to anyone. But having said that I also think every computer should have a built in hand that I could activate from my pc and slap ya.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join