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: 6
35
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I don't wish to control another's actions. But my beliefs will save me from censoring others.

So? Your beliefs won't save you from others censoring you.


So? I never said it would.




posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: CreationBro

Agreed, some people will react irrationally, violently even. However, should our rights be limited because others refuse to act like adults? I don't think so. That's why people get arrested for punching people in the face.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Do I have the right to tell you that I have a gun and will kill you even though I was joking and don't have a gun? You mentioned about Charlie Hebdo. They knew the risks.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

But you do believe it should.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Threats of violence are not protected speech. In the US you have no right to say them and can be prosecuted for them both criminally and civilly.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope




Yet you're saying speech has an effect of which it isn't the cause, that people cannot choose their own actions and that words do it for them.




Look at verbal expression as a form of energy if you will and if you direct that energy at someone in a negative way it is only common sense that you will get a negative reaction in return. You have just as much energy invested in the outcome of that exchange as the other party involved if you initially provoke them. Is reactionary violence right maybe, maybe not but it is not a possibility that can be ruled out because you find it irrational. Humans are irrational and emotional beings and for most of us it is pretty easy to determine what is ok and not ok to say and when to say or not say it and how you say it to whom it is said. I would love to see you go deep into banger territory and walk up to a group of corner boys and plead your case in your usual vernacular articulateness around why it is ok for you to say the N word because your right to do so is protected. Go in a gay club and start screaming about how you hate fags and queers and so does god and see how long it takes for you to be dragged out there and tossed into the street. Knowing what to say, when to say it, how to say it and whom to say it to is fairly common sense, at least for those of us brought up with a sense of courtesy and decorum.


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



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: TobyFlenderson

I was trying to make a point but you brought up another good point. What if I was joking? People joke about killing others all the time. Heck friends say they will kill other friends when they're mad but don't really mean it. So where do you draw the line?



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Do I have the right to tell you that I have a gun and will kill you even though I was joking and don't have a gun? You mentioned about Charlie Hebdo. They knew the risks.


It's not very common that one will jokenly threaten someone with death by shooting. But yes you have that right.

The only risk is pretending that many fundamentalists won't murder others when their feelings are hurt.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

That's not so. Most of our laws are born of concern. Murder for example is illegal, it's not a valid form of conflict resolution for wars of words.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think you need to reread what I wrote. Your response is totally off; I am surprised because you are such a deep thinker-maybe again, overthinking. Time for bed.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

At least you agree. Free speech comes with risks and possible consequences. It's unfortunate but that's the reality of this world. Just trying to tell you that just because you say that people shouldn't say certain things doesn't mean they are against free speech. It just means that they want them to be sensible. They worry about the consequences.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

But you do believe it should.



What? What I believe is that free speech is the core principle of the enlightenment, and the rights upon which all other rights are built. What I believe is that those who resort to censorship, or are apologists for it, and do not defend the fundamental freedom of expression in others, only pay lip service to it for purposes of public relations.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

At least you agree. Free speech comes with risks and possible consequences. It's unfortunate but that's the reality of this world. Just trying to tell you that just because you say that people shouldn't say certain things doesn't mean they are against free speech. It just means that they want them to be sensible. They worry about the consequences.


No, I disagree.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

"In law 'threat' has universally been interpreted to require more than the mere expression of intention. It has, in fact, been interpreted to require both intention and ability in the circumstances which would justify apprehension on the part of the recipient of the threat." Robinson v Bradley, 300 F.Supp. 665, 668 (D.Mass. 1969).

Intent is important and in many threats case that is what it boils down to, did the defendant actually intend it or not.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

That's not so. Most of our laws are born of concern. Murder for example is illegal, it's not a valid form of conflict resolution for wars of words.


Free speech isn't a law.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: TobyFlenderson

I know but that isn't the point. The point is the risk of consequences. Many times when people get angry in heated arguments they tell others they will kill others. Would you be surprised that others take that seriously? See? Risks. Consequences.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The only thing I would disagree with is that Free Speech is the foundational right upon which all others are based. To me, that would be the right to personal property that can not be taken nor violated without cause and due process.
edit on 18-4-2017 by TobyFlenderson because: typo



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

In other words you believe that it should if not for all these pesky apologists.

When it is just you and someone else, there is nobody else to blame.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 10:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Justso
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think you need to reread what I wrote. Your response is totally off; I am surprised because you are such a deep thinker-maybe again, overthinking. Time for bed.


I'm fairly certain you said that there are consequences of everything we say and do. I said there isn't. If you can tell me the cause and effect between words and consequences you may have a point.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



If you can tell me the cause and effect between words and consequences you may have a point.

Basically you are saying that it's a decision made by others to do violence against you due to what you said and that isn't your fault?
That's kinda like stirring up a hornet's nest and you get stung and you said oops not my fault.
Though I do see your point in a philosophical level.




top topics



 
35
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join