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.

 

In Defense Of Censorship

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2017 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

So the act of discussing an issue is the "art of" prohibiting discussion of the issue?

That's ponderous indeed.




posted on May, 4 2017 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: FauxMulder

Having said that, the problem with all of these free speech threads is that we eliminate rationality. No one thinks an employee at McD's has the right to validly point out that someone is a fat ass. What is truly important is political speech. Colbert has an absolute right to say what he said as long as it does not violate his employer's wishes or FCC rules. I don't agree with it, but he has the right to believe and say it.

Anne Coulter has the right to her opinions as well. She had been properly invited to expound on those opinions and was denied that opportunity by a group of miscreants and a week kneed University administration.


Of course they should be able to say what they want whether people agree or not. The point is, the only protection from the bill of rights is against the government to do something to them for saying those things. Nowhere does it say you are protected from any consequence of your speech. People confuse the 1st amendment for meaning all speech is protected from anyone or anything. That is not the case. Whether we agree with that fact or not, doesn't change it. Don't get me wrong, I don't think anyone should be silenced. I just want to clarify how the 1st amendment protects you.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 10:54 AM
link   
The plague of political correctness is the spawn of censorship.

We as a society have become way too sensitive.


$0.02



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar




Censorship is for those who want to avoid debate.


X says something Y doesn't like.

As per the definition.



an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.


www.dictionary.com...

Debate is censorship.

Shutting down speech we don't like.

Those that avoid debate are not the censors.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: FauxMulder


“There is no such thing as a dirty word. Nor is there a word so powerful, that it's going to send the listener to the lake of fire upon hearing it.” ― Frank Zappa

Many years back, Playbook and Hustler magazines were right out in the open on store's magazine racks. There came a time when stores were 'requested-not ordered" to place a mid-center plain wrapper covering the center so as not to be seen by children or others who may be offended in some way....but one could still see the PLAYBOY logo.

So it wasnt so much as "censored" as it could still be seen for what it was...but just a simple solution to appease the customer base purchasers-and young or other objectors and publishers equally.

But censorship as a whole? No. This should remain a "free-society". The "PLAYBOY" example was an easy and effective one that achieved the same goal for both parties.
edit on 4-5-2017 by mysterioustranger because: err



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

So you are a censor?



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: neo96

So you are a censor?


Everyone is D.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 11:04 AM
link   
There isn't an opposite of censorship. People can choose not to speak when free.

Acceptable vernacular and censorship need not be confused.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
There is no such thing as completely free speech - not a single place on earth. Quite rightly, some speech will land you in jail or with some other punishment.


There is absolute free speech everywhere. Right now in my office, I can utter any amount of profanities, slurs, and defamations as I want without penalty or being struck by lightning. The only caveat is that I am the only one in my office, and no one is here to censor me or run to the authorities when they deem my speech worthy of censorship.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: FauxMulder

Should be titled "In Defense of DECENCY".

Which is a discussion of know your audience.

And that falls within the confines of any censorship authorities within a given platform.

But other than that it's called if you don't like it don't watch / go to / pay for it.




posted on May, 4 2017 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Debate unfortunately leads to censorship in some instances.
It's a massive stretch to say they are the same.

How can you debate censored material?



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Damn! Good idea or "in defense of the 1st amendment"

I am reading elsewhere still people using the 1st amendment to justify people saying ridiculous things. I just want it to be clarified that the first amendment protects you from the government not your boss, a private venue, etc.

I'm not offended by anything really. I use exactly what you said, don't watch / go to / pay for it.
edit on 4-5-2017 by FauxMulder because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join