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: 5
28
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: SirHardHarry

That is the only reason they do.

They don't like HER.

Because of what she says.

Guess they are just scared the Coulter might rub off.




posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
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.


Then your comment about said speech not being heard is irrelevant.

It might be "repugnant" to free speech, but it is still the right to speech, even if said speech is not heard.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If I'm speaking in front of the entrance and she pushes passed me, isn't she then inhibiting my speech?



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: SirHardHarry




Then your comment about said speech not being heard is irrelevant.

It might be "repugnant" to free speech, but it is still the right to speech, even if said speech is not heard.


Actually it's your reading comprehension that is irrelevant. I said it was the right of others to hear her, not her right to be heard.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If I'm speaking in front of the entrance and she pushes passed me, isn't she then inhibiting my speech?


What?



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


If you are inhibiting her right to express herself, then yes.


How does holding a sign or protesting outside her speaking event prevent her from speaking/her right to speech?



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: SirHardHarry

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
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.


Then your comment about said speech not being heard is irrelevant.

It might be "repugnant" to free speech, but it is still the right to speech, even if said speech is not heard.


Considering most of the speeches take place in a closed venue that someone has to seek out in order to hear the speech in question, only people who are interested in hearing, or assigned to hear, what Coulter, Shapiro, Yiannopolis, Murray and others have to say would be there.

The words in question aren't going to be piped throughout all the buildings on campus.

But we are talking about a time when the local college created safe space therapy rooms just because the Republican Convention was in the same major metropolitan area as it was. So clearly, just the very knowledge that such people might be speaking their ideas to others in the same zip code is enough to set some groups off.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: SirHardHarry




Then your comment about said speech not being heard is irrelevant.

It might be "repugnant" to free speech, but it is still the right to speech, even if said speech is not heard.


Actually it's your reading comprehension that is irrelevant. I said it was the right of others to hear her, not her right to be heard.


And I asked you if there is the right to speech or the right to be heard, and you said the right to speech.

Check your own reading comprehension.

There is no right to be heard.
edit on 25-4-2017 by SirHardHarry because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

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.


Human Rights do not require a God or a State to grant them. They exist.

For that matter, the State can only agree enforce that right, or attempt to restrict it. Neither can create something that already exists as a matter of fact.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: SirHardHarry




How does holding a sign or protesting outside her speaking event prevent her from speaking/her right to speech?


I didn't say it did.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: SirHardHarry

And then you said this.



Then your comment about said speech not being heard is irrelevant.


Which comment were you talking about? The one you misunderstood due to your reading comprehension.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:48 PM
link   

I said it was the right of others to hear her,


The right to hear speech? Where is that right granted?
edit on 25-4-2017 by SirHardHarry because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: SirHardHarry




There is no right to be heard.


Well then someone needs to go tell that to all the people protesting.

After they have no right to be heard.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: SirHardHarry




There is no right to be heard.


Well then someone needs to go tell that to all the people protesting.

After they have no right to be heard.



No, they don't.

They can protest all they want. And people can ignore them all they wish.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:51 PM
link   

University campuses have historically been bastions of free speech. UC Berkeley was the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement.


Birth to death.

Bwhahaaaaaa!

Berkeley was the 'birthplace' of free speech.

That's just too rich.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74


Read this by the great Frederick Douglas, as it may offer some perspective:

Plea for Free Speech in Boston

"Boston is a great city - and Music Hall has a fame almost as extensive as that of Boston. Nowhere more than here have the principles of human freedom been expounded. But for the circumstances already mentioned, it would seem almost presumption for me to say anything here about those principles. And yet, even here, in Boston, the moral atmosphere is dark and heavy. The principles of human liberty, even I correctly apprehended, find but limited support in this hour a trial. The world moves slowly, and Boston is much like the world. We thought the principle of free speech was an accomplished fact. Here, if nowhere else, we thought the right of the people to assemble and to express their opinion was secure. Dr. Channing had defended the right, Mr. Garrison had practically asserted the right, and Theodore Parker had maintained it with steadiness and fidelity to the last.

But here we are to-day contending for what we thought we gained years ago. The mortifying and disgraceful fact stares us in the face, that though Faneuil Hall and Bunker Hill Monument stand, freedom of speech is struck down. No lengthy detail of facts is needed. They are already notorious; far more so than will be wished ten years hence.

The world knows that last Monday a meeting assembled to discuss the question: "How Shall Slavery Be Abolished?" The world also knows that that meeting was invaded, insulted, captured by a mob of gentlemen, and thereafter broken up and dispersed by the order of the mayor, who refused to protect it, though called upon to do so. If this had been a mere outbreak of passion and prejudice among the baser sort, maddened by rum and hounded on by some wily politician to serve some immediate purpose, - a mere exceptional affair, - it might be allowed to rest with what has already been said. But the leaders of the mob were gentlemen. They were men who pride themselves upon their respect for law and order.

These gentlemen brought their respect for the law with them and proclaimed it loudly while in the very act of breaking the law. Theirs was the law of slavery. The law of free speech and the law for the protection of public meetings they trampled under foot, while they greatly magnified the law of slavery.

The scene was an instructive one. Men seldom see such a blending of the gentleman with the rowdy, as was shown on that occasion. It proved that human nature is very much the same, whether in tarpaulin or broadcloth. Nevertheless, when gentlemen approach us in the character of lawless and abandoned loafers, - assuming for the moment their manners and tempers, - they have themselves to blame if they are estimated below their quality.

No right was deemed by the fathers of the Government more sacred than the right of speech. It was in their eyes, as in the eyes of all thoughtful men, the great moral renovator of society and government. Daniel Webster called it a homebred right, a fireside privilege. Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one's thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. Thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, founded in injustice and wrong, are sure to tremble, if men are allowed to reason of righteousness, temperance, and of a judgment to come in their presence. Slavery cannot tolerate free speech. Five years of its exercise would banish the auction block and break every chain in the South. They will have none of it there, for they have the power. But shall it be so here?

Even here in Boston, and among the friends of freedom, we hear two voices: one denouncing the mob that broke up our meeting on Monday as a base and cowardly outrage; and another, deprecating and regretting the holding of such a meeting, by such men, at such a time. We are told that the meeting was ill-timed, and the parties to it unwise.

Why, what is the matter with us? Are we going to palliate and excuse a palpable and flagrant outrage on the right of speech, by implying that only a particular description of persons should exercise that right? Are we, at such a time, when a great principle has been struck down, to quench the moral indignation which the deed excites, by casting reflections upon those on whose persons the outrage has been committed? After all the arguments for liberty to which Boston has listened for more than a quarter of a century, has she yet to learn that the time to assert a right is the time when the right itself is called in question, and that the men of all others to assert it are the men to whom the right has been denied?

It would be no vindication of the right of speech to prove that certain gentlemen of great distinction, eminent for their learning and ability, are allowed to freely express their opinions on all subjects - including the subject of slavery. Such a vindication would need, itself, to be vindicated. It would add insult to injury. Not even an old-fashioned abolition meeting could vindicate that right in Boston just now. There can be no right of speech where any man, however lifted up, or however humble, however young, or however old, is overawed by force, and compelled to suppress his honest sentiments.

Equally clear is the right to hear. To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker. It is just as criminal to rob a man of his right to speak and hear as it would be to rob him of his money. I have no doubt that Boston will vindicate this right. But in order to do so, there must be no concessions to the enemy. When a man is allowed to speak because he is rich and powerful, it aggravates the crime of denying the right to the poor and humble.

The principle must rest upon its own proper basis. And until the right is accorded to the humblest as freely as to the most exalted citizen, the government of Boston is but an empty name, and its freedom a mockery. A man's right to speak does not depend upon where he was born or upon his color. The simple quality of manhood is the solid basis of the right - and there let it rest forever."



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If I'm speaking in front of the entrance and she pushes passed me, isn't she then inhibiting my speech?


What?


It's a simple straightforward question.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If I'm speaking in front of the entrance and she pushes passed me, isn't she then inhibiting my speech?


What?


It's a simple straightforward question.


Like I said. Fair-weather friends.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
The Fair-Weather Friends of Free Speech

'Free speech'; Saying what you must, when you must, where you must say what you must say.
'Freedom' is just a (vain) 'belief', impossible (other than metaphorically) in Reality.
'Free speech'? What you say when no one else can hear you?
It is still not 'freely chosen speech'.
There are many legal caveats to the American notion of 'free speech', as are there anywhere there are other people.
So it is not 'free' even then.

If you want to start some 'Free Speech Cult/Religion', and shove it down everyone's throat, like the verminous spread of any 'belief' infection, will I be seeing you at my doorstep on Saturday morning? *__-



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: namelesss

I wonder if you'd employ that casuistry while censoring others?



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join