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: 9
28
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


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.


I completely agree with that.




posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: underpass61

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?


What?

What makes you think I'm afraid of hearing?



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: 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.


That's why I posted the Frederick Douglas speech earlier. He was protested by "gentlemen", and his speech disrupted by pro-slavery protesters. They shouted slurs and hissed and took over the room while he attempted to speak.

In a later speech, he had this to say about the right to hear:

"
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."

Source

Do you agree or disagree with Douglass?



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: SirHardHarry

originally posted by: underpass61

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?


What?

What makes you think I'm afraid of hearing?


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.


Obviously if the goal of your type of "peaceful protest" is to disrupt or prevent another person from speaking, you must on some level be afraid of what they have to say.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I'm well aware of the arguments for the right to hear as expressed by Douglass and others, including Alexander Meiklejohn.

While the arguments are mostly sound, they are not law; protests do not prevent speech in and of themselves.

Speech is protected by the 1A; hearing is not speech.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: SirHardHarry

originally posted by: underpass61

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?


What?

What makes you think I'm afraid of hearing?


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.


Obviously if the goal of your type of "peaceful protest" is to disrupt or prevent another person from speaking, you must on some level be afraid of what they have to say.


Where did I say the goal of "my type" of protest was to prevent another's speech? I said the goal of some protesters is to prevent speech, but protests in of them themselves do not prevent one from speaking.

Please re-read my replies in this thread in context. I've been over this.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
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.


So Christians holding up signs and shouting in protest against abortion are being childish?

edit on 4/26/2017 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Obviously, if the goal of some "peaceful protesters" is to disrupt or prevent another person from speaking, the protesters must on some level be afraid of what the speaker has to say.

OK fixed.

That said, I fail to see how preemptive protesting and "de-platforming" are in any way examples of free speech. My bad.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: SirHardHarry




I'm well aware of the arguments for the right to hear as expressed by Douglass and others, including Alexander Meiklejohn.

While the arguments are mostly sound, they are not law; protests do not prevent speech in and of themselves.

Speech is protected by the 1A; hearing is not speech.


Again, we're not talking about the 1st. We're talking about free speech.

Thurgood Marshall's point:

"As the majority correctly demonstrates, in a variety of contexts, this Court has held that the First Amendment protects the right to receive information and ideas, the freedom to hear as well as the freedom to speak. The reason for this is that the First Amendment protects a process, in Justice Brandeis' words, "reason as applied through public discussion," Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 274 U. S. 375 (1927) (concurring opinion); and the right to speak and hear -- including the right to inform others and to be informed about public issues -- are inextricably part of that process. The freedom to speak and the freedom to hear are inseparable; they are two sides of the same coin. But the coin itself is the process of thought and discussion. The activity of speakers becoming listeners and listeners becoming speakers in the vital interchange of thought is the "means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth.""


edit on 26-4-2017 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: SirHardHarry




I'm well aware of the arguments for the right to hear as expressed by Douglass and others, including Alexander Meiklejohn.

While the arguments are mostly sound, they are not law; protests do not prevent speech in and of themselves.

Speech is protected by the 1A; hearing is not speech.


Again, we're not talking about the 1st. We're talking about free speech.


Again, hearing is not speech.

ETA:

Nice edit. What case/source?

One does have the right to hear and receive information, which we've discussed regarding censorship of speech and the right to hear, and which is very well known.

The question is: does he speak of the right to hear in a public forum?

This is where the debate lies regarding protests.
edit on 26-4-2017 by SirHardHarry because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: SirHardHarry

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: SirHardHarry




I'm well aware of the arguments for the right to hear as expressed by Douglass and others, including Alexander Meiklejohn.

While the arguments are mostly sound, they are not law; protests do not prevent speech in and of themselves.

Speech is protected by the 1A; hearing is not speech.


Again, we're not talking about the 1st. We're talking about free speech.


Again, hearing is not speech.


I never said it was. In fact, no one in the history of the universe said hearing is speech.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Nowhere in the article does it equate free speech with First Amendment.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: SirHardHarry

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: SirHardHarry




I'm well aware of the arguments for the right to hear as expressed by Douglass and others, including Alexander Meiklejohn.

While the arguments are mostly sound, they are not law; protests do not prevent speech in and of themselves.

Speech is protected by the 1A; hearing is not speech.


Again, we're not talking about the 1st. We're talking about free speech.


Again, hearing is not speech.


I never said it was.


No, you didn't.

But the argument is freedom of speech (which includes protests), and which is a right guaranteed under constitutional law, of which the right to hear (in a public forum) is not delineated.
edit on 26-4-2017 by SirHardHarry because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: underpass61


Obviously, if the goal of some "peaceful protesters" is to disrupt or prevent another person from speaking, the protesters must on some level be afraid of what the speaker has to say.


You'll have to ask them.


I fail to see how preemptive protesting and "de-platforming" are in any way examples of free speech


(Peaceful) Protests are protected speech. Welcome to America.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

And inhibiting protest is inhibiting free speech. It's a stalemate as it should be.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

No, it's not,

If you invited me to your home, and I started saying harmful things and you asked me to leave would you be Anti-Free Speech?



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: SirHardHarry

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: SirHardHarry

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: SirHardHarry




I'm well aware of the arguments for the right to hear as expressed by Douglass and others, including Alexander Meiklejohn.

While the arguments are mostly sound, they are not law; protests do not prevent speech in and of themselves.

Speech is protected by the 1A; hearing is not speech.


Again, we're not talking about the 1st. We're talking about free speech.


Again, hearing is not speech.


I never said it was.


No, you didn't.

But the argument is freedom of speech (which includes protests), and which is a right guaranteed under constitutional law, of which the right to hear (in a public forum) is not delineated.


I'm not speaking about law. I'm speaking about the principle of free speech, just to be extra clear.

The right of human beings to hear free speech is included in the arguments in favour of the principle since at least John Milton. If you disagree with the arguments then say so, but doing so is to disagree with a pinnacle of free speech.

This is exactly what I mean by fair-weather friends. The reduction of the principle to laws, the appeal to conditions of speech, and the disregard for even considering the arguments in support of the principle, let alone the ignorance towards them, reveals a censorial nature in those who will only pay lip-service to it.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

No, it's not,

If you invited me to your home, and I started saying harmful things and you asked me to leave would you be Anti-Free Speech?


I gauruntee you that your patience would run out before mine.

Nothing you could say could be harmful. All of it would be merely the reflections of your thoughts.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: SirHardHarry

A protest is illegitimate when it censors another. To protest in order to shut down or suppress a speech is simply simply taking advantage of a freedom, while at the same time spitting on it.

A right is also a duty. Your right to life is my duty not to kill you. The same goes for the human right to free speech. Your right to speak is my duty not to censor you. If you censor others you do not believe in the right whatsoever, you only use it for the sake of your own advantage.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Would you consider it Anti-free speech if we are talking about two unrelated people?




top topics



 
28
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join