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 and Freedom from Consequences.

page: 4
35
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

All rights and freedoms come with consequences when they are abused. Freedom of Speech is no different.

That is why we have laws on slander/defamation/libel.

The freedom of speech protects individuals from the government hindering the right to speak freely. It does not protect people from the consequences of what they say.



That's not the case. Freedom of speech does not apply to only the government.

Laws regarding information is one thing, but freedom expression has to do with expression.


The "government" has no right to freedom of speech. That right is for individual citizens and even then they are not protected from the consequences of exercising that right.


The right is for everyone, whether citizen or not. It's a human right.




posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: DBCowboy

Rights have conditions.

You have the right to bear arms, but your right becomes conditional, for example, if a private property owner does not want to allow people to bear arms on their property.

You can enter the private property, but only if you give up your right to bear arms.


Then stop calling them, "rights".

They're called privileges.


There's no law against being an a hole. If there were the Republicans would not have a party. They would all be in jail.

I think the OP was mostly whining about people reacting violently to speech and art. There are already laws against such violence. I think the OP was complaining how people react is despicable because they are so sensitive and intolerant to other people hating on them with speech.

I think all people should be compassionate and understanding when it comes to walking in other peoples shoes. And then there's the reality of the Shiite show we live in. Life is tough. People get violent. Just be aware of it and try not to incite or get in the way of it when it happens. Human beings are total Shiites but they are also as great as they are evil.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

All rights and freedoms come with consequences when they are abused. Freedom of Speech is no different.

That is why we have laws on slander/defamation/libel.

The freedom of speech protects individuals from the government hindering the right to speak freely. It does not protect people from the consequences of what they say.



That's not the case. Freedom of speech does not apply to only the government.

Laws regarding information is one thing, but freedom expression has to do with expression.


The "government" has no right to freedom of speech. That right is for individual citizens and even then they are not protected from the consequences of exercising that right.


The right is for everyone, whether citizen or not. It's a human right.


Correct. It's a human right, but does not apply to the government, in contrast to what you had said.

The consequences when that right is abused is also directed at individuals, not the government.
edit on 18-4-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

All rights and freedoms come with consequences when they are abused. Freedom of Speech is no different.

That is why we have laws on slander/defamation/libel.

The freedom of speech protects individuals from the government hindering the right to speak freely. It does not protect people from the consequences of what they say.



That's not the case. Freedom of speech does not apply to only the government.

Laws regarding information is one thing, but freedom expression has to do with expression.


The "government" has no right to freedom of speech. That right is for individual citizens and even then they are not protected from the consequences of exercising that right.


The right is for everyone, whether citizen or not. It's a human right.


Correct. It's a human right, but does not apply to the government, as you stated.

The consequences when that right is abused is also directed at individuals, not the government.


I always like it when you get up enough courage to post. Introverts unite!

You know, 2016 was the election year I really thought the anarchists would finally get organized. Boy was I wrong.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I don't think I was clear enough. I was responding to your statement that "freedom of speech protects individuals from the government hindering the right to speak freely". I was trying to say that it doesn't just protect individuals from the government, that it applies to everyone.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

All rights and freedoms come with consequences when they are abused. Freedom of Speech is no different.

That is why we have laws on slander/defamation/libel.

The freedom of speech protects individuals from the government hindering the right to speak freely. It does not protect people from the consequences of what they say.



That's not the case. Freedom of speech does not apply to only the government.

Laws regarding information is one thing, but freedom expression has to do with expression.


The "government" has no right to freedom of speech. That right is for individual citizens and even then they are not protected from the consequences of exercising that right.


The right is for everyone, whether citizen or not. It's a human right.


Correct. It's a human right, but does not apply to the government, as you stated.

The consequences when that right is abused is also directed at individuals, not the government.


I always like it when you get up enough courage to post. Introverts unite!

You know, 2016 was the election year I really thought the anarchists would finally get organized. Boy was I wrong.


It's not about getting the courage to post. It depends on the time I have.

Considering what I do for a living, it can be tough to find the time to post and following up accordingly.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert

I don't think I was clear enough. I was responding to your statement that "freedom of speech protects individuals from the government hindering the right to speak freely". I was trying to say that it doesn't just protect individuals from the government, that it applies to everyone.


Ok. That freedom is still not protected from the consequences of how they choose to use that right.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I agree with you in regards to the violence. Illegal is illegal. No point in elaborating.

But I disagree with a blanket statement about consequences. The speaker does not get a free pass regardless of what he or she says. Social media has proven that more than once. Say something offensive, your boss finds out, and guess what? You have been given the opportunity to pursue alternate career choices. (you got fired)

Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, but it may come at a price. That price should never extend into the realm of physical violence, but there are a multitude of other ways you could end up paying for your expression. Just because a thing can be said does not necessarily mean it should. Can you call a black man a n****r, or a gay man a f*g? Freedom of speech says yes, you can. Unless you believe in protected classes. But isn't that a form of censorship? How many people have to agree with stopping certain language before it ceases to be censorship and starts being an accepted norm?



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I can't stand it. What does a professed introvert do for a living?

I write service reviews for hookers on Yelp for a living.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert

I don't think I was clear enough. I was responding to your statement that "freedom of speech protects individuals from the government hindering the right to speak freely". I was trying to say that it doesn't just protect individuals from the government, that it applies to everyone.


Ok. That freedom is still not protected from the consequences of how they choose to use that right.


Of course it isn't protected, and that is my main point. My point is that it should be protected, and that no one is doing enough to protect it. We are returning to medieval levels of censorship here.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Edward Snowden, Julian Assange', Chelsea Clinton, Gary McKinnon are still suffering real life consequences for their right to free speech.

There is speech that gets you accolades, speech that gets you boo's, speech that gets you clocked at rallies, speech that gets you killed and speech that gets you, your family and your friends killed.

If there were no humans and no emotions involved then anyone could say whatever is on their minds with no chance of negative repercussions, but alas, the stupid humans and their uncontrollable emotions and actions. (emphasis on the word 'uncontrollable')



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

This may be the first time I ever liked anything you posted. Even so, screw you, I can control my emotions!



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

When there are binding agreements and contracts to not say or do certain things then yes, there should be consequences. But that is more a consequence of signing the contract just as much as it is breaking it.

Freedom of speech says simply to let people speak, not to go out of ones way to insult others or scream racial epithets or disrupt the business of others.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert

I don't think I was clear enough. I was responding to your statement that "freedom of speech protects individuals from the government hindering the right to speak freely". I was trying to say that it doesn't just protect individuals from the government, that it applies to everyone.


Ok. That freedom is still not protected from the consequences of how they choose to use that right.


Of course it isn't protected, and that is my main point. My point is that it should be protected, and that no one is doing enough to protect it. We are returning to medieval levels of censorship here.


No one is being censored. You can say anything you like.

The problem is that too many people are returning to the medieval levels of thinking that they can say what they want without paying the consequences.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Your avatar pick is just awesome!



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: introvert

I can't stand it. What does a professed introvert do for a living?

I write service reviews for hookers on Yelp for a living.


I do a variety of things.

It's complicated and I'm not sure if I'm ready to give-up the details quite yet.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Just to be clear - not wanting to risk the consequences does not mean you are against free speech. It's just common sense.
Do you want to risk the lives of people in a movie theater by yelling fire? Sure you have that right but don't be surprised if they get hurt.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think you have just exposed yourself.

There's reality and then then there's the way you'd like it to be. Seldom, if ever, the same.

Truthfully, everyone wants to be able to say exactly how they think and feel but most, hold their tongue (except internet trolls) so as not to hurt or inflame others and especially be excommunicated socially.

Reality is and the consequences-for everything you say and do- are ultimately your own responsibility. And sometimes that can be really bad. Not right-but that's the reality.

This really doesn't have to be overthought.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Vroomfondel

When there are binding agreements and contracts to not say or do certain things then yes, there should be consequences. But that is more a consequence of signing the contract just as much as it is breaking it.

Freedom of speech says simply to let people speak, not to go out of ones way to insult others or scream racial epithets or disrupt the business of others.


One of the things I love about football is how many times on any given rule there is always a controversial play where the rule can be equally interpreted either way. It's just amazing. No matter what the rule is there's always a play that occurs EXACTLY on the line the rule creates. It's really quite fascinating! And it seems like it happens at least once or twice every game!


edit on 18-4-2017 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015





top topics



 
35
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join