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.
originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
The 'Muh Constitutionalist" say that the constitution protect you from the government, but they leave out that it doesn't protect you from each other, that wasn't what it was designed for
originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
No, because we are not the Government, we also don't submit to these oppressive imposed morality/ethics based on 'Law-And-Order' 'Religion' 'The Constitution'.
but, if you are playing by the Constitution, again, that protects you from the government, not each other, you are leaving out consequences and repercussions from your words/actions
originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
No, because we are not the Government, we also don't submit to these oppressive imposed morality/ethics based on 'Law-And-Order' 'Religion' 'The Constitution'.
but, if you are playing by the Constitution, again, that protects you from the government, not each other, you are leaving out consequences and repercussions from your words/actions
originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Spell out what you want people to do regarding free speech. Not protest speakers at universities? Not tell someone they're being an -ist? What?
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: SirHardHarry
Yes sorry, I'm not American.
I do not reconcile it. My right to hear what I want is not up to you or any law.
Isn't the act of protesting in itself an attempt to silence the speaker? If you merely believe the person wrong in their views why wouldn't you just stage your own forum to express your own supposedly superior philosophy, instead of disrupting another's with shouts and intimidation? Unless you truly believe the average person is too stupid and gullible to think for themselves - which to me seems to be the case.
Then you have to deal with not being able to hear something you wish while not trampling others' rights to speech, unless you desire to get the judiciary involved.
Unfortunately...."the heckler's veto" is what passes for "peer review", mostly by people with financial interest in a status quo.
Probably mostly because psychology is a liberal art that likes to play like its a science.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: SirHardHarry
Then you have to deal with not being able to hear something you wish while not trampling others' rights to speech, unless you desire to get the judiciary involved.
I'm not sure I understand your point. How is my wanting to hear something I wish trampling another's right to speech?
Again with the sophistry and semantics.
One argument in this thread (by you) was people's supposed "right" to hear a speaker and that supposed "right" being denied by protesters who "prevented" said speech from being heard.