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: 8
28
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


It's indoctrination of 'Morality and Ethics' based on 'The Constitution', 'Law-and-Order' and 'Religion' they are all spooks, including morality, that is a choice




posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: SirHardHarry




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.


Again with the empty and shallow argument. What is your point? is my question. Or can you make one?


The point I've made several times already in this thread.

There is no right to hear.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: XAnarchistX




It's indoctrination of 'Morality and Ethics' based on 'The Constitution', 'Law-and-Order' and 'Religion' they are all spooks, including morality, that is a choice


So what? No morality is also a choice, but an awful one.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: SirHardHarry

Why would there be no right to hear?

Its a natural condition of your being, is it not? If you are born deaf, or become deaf, perhaps you lose your right to hear as a natural function of biology.

The right to speak freely implies a right to hear. I'd suspect noise ordinances likely would support my viewpoint, as noise is what typically interferes with hearing.

Nonetheless, it seems a silly and minor distinction that is incongruant with natural law.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: SirHardHarry




The point I've made several times already in this thread.

There is no right to hear.


You've never stated that point nor applied an argument to it. Why is there no right to hear?



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


The right to speak freely implies a right to hear.


One has a right to hear speech insofar as it involves censorship of that speech.

The right to hear speech (such as speech coming from a radio of news station that is not censored, and which DOES exist), is different from the supposed "censorship" of not hearing speech due to protesters—that is not censorship. This is why censorship is generally not allowed, but protests are.

Two different issues.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope


Why is there no right to hear?


ETA:

Yes, I should have been more clear.
edit on 26-4-2017 by SirHardHarry because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: SirHardHarry

Even if my government invokes tyranny and censors what i am allowed to see....that right still exists.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: SirHardHarry




One has a right to hear speech insofar as it involves censorship of that speech.

The right to hear speech (such as speech coming from a radio of news station that is not censored, and which DOES exist), is different from the supposed "censorship" of not hearing speech due to protesters—that is not censorship. This is why censorship is generally not allowed, but protests are.

Two different issues.



The right to peaceful protest is important to a free society, but no one has a right to disturb the peace, disrupt someone's speech, and to engage in mob conduct or posturing in order to suppress someone else's voice. That's censorship by definition.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

People can choose 'what' morality is to them, it doesn't have to be encompassing belief



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: XAnarchistX




People can choose 'what' morality is to them, it doesn't have to be encompassing belief


It doesn't not have to be either. Either way, such arguments say nothing about morality or ethics in the slightest, and lead to base relativism.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

But this is where the argument of "Free Speech" comes from since the Constitution is essentially a Spook.

People try to play the "ethics" card when it comes to de-platforming based off the constitution, not giving someone a platform is not "Anti-Free Speech"



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: underpass61

Protest is literally free speech.


Protesting what someone says is one thing, protesting to prevent him from saying it is another.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: XAnarchistX



But this is where the argument of "Free Speech" comes from since the Constitution is essentially a Spook.

People try to play the "ethics" card when it comes to de-platforming based off the constitution, not giving someone a platform is not "Anti-Free Speech"


The argument of free speech does not come from the constitution, but from philosophy. I'm not sure what a "spook" is outside of its traditional definitions.

De-platforming isn't "not giving someone a platform", but rescinding an invitation to speak due to pressure from opposition groups. It is anti-free speech.
edit on 26-4-2017 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: underpass61

Protest is literally free speech.


Protesting what someone says is one thing, protesting to prevent him from saying it is another.


And for a certain person who is posting on this thread, protesting to prevent others from hearing what someone says is simply sophistry to try to justify the current fashion of shouting down speakers with views one does not like. It's really another way of saying protesting to prevent someone from speaking.
edit on 26-4-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: SirHardHarry




One has a right to hear speech insofar as it involves censorship of that speech.

The right to hear speech (such as speech coming from a radio of news station that is not censored, and which DOES exist), is different from the supposed "censorship" of not hearing speech due to protesters—that is not censorship. This is why censorship is generally not allowed, but protests are.

Two different issues.



The right to peaceful protest is important to a free society, but no one has a right to disturb the peace, disrupt someone's speech, and to engage in mob conduct or posturing in order to suppress someone else's voice. That's censorship by definition.


Peaceful protests can be as loud as necessary and still be peaceful and protected (time/place/manner dependent). Loudness, while disruptive, is not violent in of itself. Protests are protected speech as long as they remain nonviolent, regardless of how disruptive they are to the speaker, since the speaker's right to speech is not taken away.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: SirHardHarry

Even if my government invokes tyranny and censors what i am allowed to see....that right still exists.


Hearing is not speech.

No, the government cannot censor or take away the right (as previously mentioned). But protesters are not the government, and protests are protected speech, which goes back to what I said earlier in this thread and is the basis for argument: protesters have a right to protest; if protests disrupt your "right to hear," where's the reconciliation? The government isn't the one preventing you from hearing, but rather a group exercising their own right. Unless we get government involved, and create free speech zones, etc to protect your right to hear. Again, the 1A protects speech, and hearing is not speech.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It's not Anti-Free Speech, it's saying we won't give you that platform because we don't have to, there is no Law that says anyone has to give a platform, or relinquish any consequences of 'Speech'



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


It's really another way of saying protesting to prevent someone from speaking.


Protests, in and of themselves, do not prevent one from speaking.

Granted, the goal of some protests might be to try to prevent one from speaking, but the protests themselves do not prevent one from speaking.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: XAnarchistX




It's not Anti-Free Speech, it's saying we won't give you that platform because we don't have to, there is no Law that says anyone has to give a platform, or relinquish any consequences of 'Speech'


Not inviting someone to speak is one thing, but inviting someone to speak and then rescinding that invitation because of the tender feelings of pressure groups is quite another. It doesn't matter if there is a law or not; it's anti-free speech and the suppression of a human right.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: SirHardHarry

Peaceful protests can be as loud as necessary and still be peaceful and protected (time/place/manner dependent). Loudness, while disruptive, is not violent in of itself. Protests are protected speech as long as they remain nonviolent, regardless of how disruptive they are to the speaker, since the speaker's right to speech is not taken away.


What are you afraid of hearing?



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join