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.

 

Congratulations! Ann Coulter finally silenced on Berkeley Campus

page: 44
86
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Maybe this little exercise will get some to see the errors of their ways.

Berkeley= Trump

Coulter= CNN.

Trump threw a hissy fit and CNN could not go on air because Trump didn't like what they had to say.

Do you hear me now ?




posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

As far as I know, it's against the law in my country to slander and harass people and call in bomb threats and stuff. I would personally not consider violent threats an act of protest. The nature of it makes it an attack, not a protest. So I guess with slander and harassment laws we don't really have free speech, in a way... is that unconstitutional? Hm.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert

Get back to me when you understand what the words PEACEABLE assembly means,

Private individuals are not 'causes' by the way.



A protest that is not peaceful is not a protest. It's a riot. You do not have the right to riot. You do have the right to assemble in order to protest.

The tax-day tea party protests are a good example. It was an exercise in the 1st amendment and a protest.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

We heard you millions of times. The real question is do you hear yourself?



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986

originally posted by: geezlouise
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

They are free to protest... I agree, but is making violent threats really considered protest? What is the definition of protest? Cause that sounds more like harassment.

Just a gentle reminder to consider what "protest" really ensues.


Some people will defend it until the cows come home as long as they have one foot inside the Constitution, no matter how morally wrong it is.

Because Constitution.


The COTUS guarantees the right to peacefully assemble.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:36 PM
link   
It's all good. The only people coming out of this looking like fascists are those on the left.
They just keep on exposing who they really are.
Much more of this would be ideal before the 2018 elections. Those trying to defend it just make it even better.

edit on 27/4/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Violence is bad, mmmkay? We want to prevent violence, right? Berkeley wants to prevent violence. Berkeley's not evil for wanting to prevent violence, are they? What's the best way to prevent violence when you don't have access to a whole police force and you don't have a million bucks for private security? You have your public event at a venue that allows what security you do have a better chance at controlling it.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Grambler

Apples and oranges.
MLK stood up for what is right. And he expected opposition and violence.


Interesting comparison. So you agree the conservatives are segregated and oppressed at Berkley?



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




A protest that is not peaceful is not a protest. It's a riot. You do not have the right to riot. You do have the right to assemble in order to protest.


NO.



The right of a citizen to peacefully 1) parade and gather or 2) demonstrate support or opposition of public policy or 3) express one's views is guaranteed by the freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble.


www.learningtogive.org...

Berkeley failed on both counts.

A private citizen is not public policy.

But they DO have those rights to speech and assembly.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
It's all good. The only people coming out of this looking like fascists are those on the left.
They just keep on exposing who they really are.
Much more of this would be ideal before the 2018 elections. Those trying to defend it just make it even better.


Not really.

LeMis gave us a link earlier that shows threats of violence were made by people on both ends of the political spectrum.

Guess what is being exposed is that there are violent idiots on all sides.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

The point is he's comparing MLK with a self professed troll who is out to stir up the pot.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So they will force Berkeley P.D. to put their whole force in place, which leaves other parts of the area unprotected... or, they will have to pay an inordinate amount of money (which I'm sure they don't have in the budget) on private security.


Well, if there wasn't a history of leftist riots, maybe it wouldn't be necessary to redistribute security assets in that way.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Violence is bad, mmmkay? We want to prevent violence, right? Berkeley wants to prevent violence. Berkeley's not evil for wanting to prevent violence, are they? What's the best way to prevent violence when you don't have access to a whole police force and you don't have a million bucks for private security? You have your public event at a venue that allows what security you do have a better chance at controlling it.


The best way for Berkeley to have prevented violence would have been for them to have gotten in cops who were going to stand up to the rioters the first time this all happened.

Now, every time a speaker comes in that the protesters don't want to be allowed to speak, all they have to do to get that speaker pulled out without saying anything is to threaten and the administration bends over backwards to "avoid violence" by cancelling them or postponing their speech.

And you approve of this.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So basically, they demand the university spend about a million bucks for security so Ann Coulter can speak when and where they want her to. Maybe YAF members should pay for the security out of their own pockets instead.


Where did you get that estimate from? Why would it cost so much?


I pulled it out of my butt, obviously. The point is, it ain't gonna be cheap and is probably beyond the budget.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: geezlouise
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

As far as I know, it's against the law in my country to slander and harass people and call in bomb threats and stuff. I would personally not consider violent threats an act of protest. The nature of it makes it an attack, not a protest. So I guess with slander and harassment laws we don't really have free speech, in a way... is that unconstitutional? Hm.


Slander is a difficult charge to make against a public figure.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Berkeley created this situation by allowed the leftist to freely riot, destroy property and assault people they disagree with.

It's like letting a spoiled child get away with anything he likes, then asking "well what am I supposed to do when I can't control him?".

The solution of course is handling the situation far better before it gets to that point.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Oh Christ, you just can't admit you're wrong.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

It appears you are failing to understand the most basic concept behind the right. Read this:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances


What is a redress of grievances?

It's a complaint. A protest.

You can use your right to protest. Whether it's in the street or to the government directly.

edit on 27-4-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I don't approve of violence. I approve of reasonable measures to prevent violence. You don't?



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Violence is bad, mmmkay? We want to prevent violence, right? Berkeley wants to prevent violence. Berkeley's not evil for wanting to prevent violence, are they? What's the best way to prevent violence when you don't have access to a whole police force and you don't have a million bucks for private security? You have your public event at a venue that allows what security you do have a better chance at controlling it.


That's right! In related news, those girls who wear revealing clothes should not walk alone in bad parts of town, and those minority folks should stay in their ghettos where they'll be safe.

We want to prevent bad things from happening, right?



new topics

top topics



 
86
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join