It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Outside of legal context it's about propaganda, false advertisements and scary statistics. Nothing at all to do with the fear of being sued. So it still doesn't apply here. Sorry.
And no I do not read only the first sentence.
So emotions are physical and being emotionally "susceptible to hurtful language" is physical but words making people feel emotions is not physical?
That doesn't seem to make much sense.
So the fear of saying the wrong things is equal to being forced to self-censor? Besides you're the one who claimed that words have no effect on people unless they decided they do.
Yes, coercion and threat and fear of retaliation can be used to force others to self-censor.
Articulated sounds and scratches on paper are unable to affect anything more than the medium they are printed on.
Emotions are quite physical.
Being "susceptible to hurtful language" doesn't mean physical affection to this listener.
Yes I know. I never claimed otherwise.
A good example would be the Muhammad drawing contests. If you give in to the fear then they have won. Again, it is a choice.
Another good example would be shouting the N word in a bad area in Chicago.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
"It's reasonable to expect limitations in our freedom of speech."
Who get's to define the limitations?
This is about suppression of free speech. I asked a poster to tell me who is forcing him to be 'civil' and you mentioned "chilling effect" which doesn't show anything then you bring up the fear of retaliation and that still doesn't show that they are being forced to self-censor. That's a decision they make. You're the one who said that words have no power on people.
So again NO ONE is forcing anyone to be civil here in the USA. If you want to talk about countries such as North Korea then I am game.
Yes the bit right after the number 2. " archaic the act or process of affecting or being affected."
Funny how it says the same thing (not verbatim) that I posted but still you felt the need to post it again as if there was a difference.
I get the feeling that you might inadvertently do that in a lot of your posting.