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.

 

The Fair-Weather Friends of Free Speech

page: 4
28
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: rockintitz

I would call it free speech.




posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74




Is protesting outside an Anne Coulter speaking event being repugnant of free speech?


If it interferes with her right to speak and the listener's right to hear her speak, then yes.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Is protesting outside an Anne Coulter speaking event being repugnant of free speech?



Yep.

Trying to stop her speak is also, and throwing things is also.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So my free speech is secondary to hers?



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74




So my free speech is secondary to hers?


Your censorship is not even secondary or tertiary to her right to speak.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Leonidas

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Kali74

That's not off topic.

The first was written by the same sort that wrote the declaration.

They are synomous with each other.

It's quite clear:



When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth,the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.




We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,


www.ushistory.org...

ALL men are created equal.

ALL men are endowed by the creator by inalienable rights.

The laws of Nature and GOD entitlethem.

Freedom of speech.

Government ONLY has authority so long as it's the consent of the governed.

Infringing A right is verboten.

Under EQUALITY of people.



If Rights are "endowed by the Creator" what about the rights of atheists that would assert that a Creator does not exist and therefore cannot be the source of anything?

Surely you would agree that atheists are entitled to free speech, correct?

Another problem with relying on the document as written as the source of the Rights mentioned is that is only applies to "All MEN are created equal". Do you agree that women are entitled as well? They are excluded in the document.

If however you believe that Free Speech is a basic Human Right, you don't have to rely on "The State" or "A Creator".



And there you have just hit upon my difficulty with the idea of voting for an atheist for office.

One of the reasons why I like the idea of someone who believes that rights are granted by a higher power is that then they become sacred in the sense that the laws of man are not to touch them and cannot remove them, only seek to oppress them, which I think we all agree is wrong.

But when you remove that idea that rights are granted by an agency higher than mankind, then people start to believe that it is the laws of man and only the laws of man which vest these rights, and then it gets dangerous because if the law is what grants, then it can also easily take away.

Until and unless I can find an atheist who has a reasonable and believable argument for how our rights are out of bounds for the law to attempt to remove, I can't in good conscience vote for one.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

My holding a sign (speech) or shouting (speech) things outside her speaking event is censoring her?



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: rockintitz

I would call it free speech.



Only someone on the extreme left would call speech a form of violence and violence to disrupt and prevent someone from speaking a form of free speech.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kali74




Is protesting outside an Anne Coulter speaking event being repugnant of free speech?


If it interferes with her right to speak and the listener's right to hear her speak, then yes.


Does she have the right to be heard or only to speak?

I suppose, then, you support free speech zones?



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: SirHardHarry

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kali74




Is protesting outside an Anne Coulter speaking event being repugnant of free speech?


If it interferes with her right to speak and the listener's right to hear her speak, then yes.


Does she have the right to be heard or only to speak?

I suppose, then, you support free speech zones?


No. if speech is truly free, it shouldn't need to take place in special, protected zones.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: SirHardHarry

No I don't support free speech zones.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Leonidas




If Rights are "endowed by the Creator" what about the rights of atheists that would assert that a Creator does not exist and therefore cannot be the source of anything?


There is no need to appeal to some creator or authority in order to sanctify free speech. The principle has been passed down through the collective wisdom of generations, and has been tested in the rigours of experiment, argument and debate.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: SirHardHarry

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kali74




Is protesting outside an Anne Coulter speaking event being repugnant of free speech?


If it interferes with her right to speak and the listener's right to hear her speak, then yes.


Does she have the right to be heard or only to speak?

I suppose, then, you support free speech zones?


No. if speech is truly free, it shouldn't need to take place in special, protected zones.


Glad you agree, even though it wasn't directed at you.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: SirHardHarry

No I don't support free speech zones.


I know you don't. That wasn't directed at you.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:32 PM
link   
The point is people shouldn't be protesting speech to begin with.

After all dialogue requires debate.

Protest is nothing more than sticking ones fingers in their ears and going 'na na na na'.

Like a child.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74




My holding a sign (speech) or shouting (speech) things outside her speaking event is censoring her?


If you are inhibiting her right to express herself, then yes. There are many ways to protest and express one's disproval, not all of which involves inhibiting someone else's speech.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: SirHardHarry




Does she have the right to be heard or only to speak?

I suppose, then, you support free speech zones?


The right to speak.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96


The point is people shouldn't be protesting speech to begin with.


Shouldn't, and having the right to, are two different things.

People have the right to protest against Coulter speaking; they do not have the right to prevent her because they don't like her or or what she might have to say.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Where did I say violence was free speech? I'm talking about protest only.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

I never said it wasn't.

It's free speech against free spee speech.

I'm not surprised though, considering the only way free speech can be taken away is by locking someone away in a room somewhere, according to you.

Someone should take away your internet priveleges. As long as you're allowed to yell at pigeons it's all good, right?



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join