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: 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?
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
The point I've made several times already in this thread.
There is no right to hear.
The right to speak freely implies a right to hear.
Why is there no 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.
People can choose 'what' morality is to them, it doesn't have to be encompassing belief
originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: underpass61
Protest is literally free speech.
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"
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.
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.
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.
It's really another way of saying protesting to prevent someone from speaking.
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'
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.