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.

 

Yes, we need freedom of speech & the press!!!!

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   
The whole point of Freedom of the Press is if you don't like what this newspaper has to say you can find one you do like or if you can't find one you're free to print your own.

Freedom of Speech is actually Freedom of Unpopular Speech. Why would popular speech or views need protection? You want Freedom of speech because you're not always going to like the guys in charge.

You want to be able to freely say you don't like those guys even when those guys are the ones in charge. What is popular today may not be popular tomorrow. The Freedom of Speech & the Press is our protection for tomorrow.
edit on 5/20/172017 by jholt5638 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 20 2017 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: jholt5638

Most of the press is owned by three companies.

That's hardly free.



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Freedom of mass manipulation through lies.

Thats more like it.



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: jholt5638

Unless you are part of the "liberal media" saying politically incorrect things about conservatives and right wingers. Then you have to pay a ridicule tax.



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

You're free to make your own news report and distribute it in manner you want.



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Freedom does not offer a licence to break the law with impunity.
Nowhere in the world can you say whatever you want without consequences you may not like.
edit on 20/5/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



Freedom does not offer a licence to break the law.


Unpopular speech, even lying isn't illegal.



Nowhere in the world can you say whatever you want without consequences you may not like.


The 1st Amendment guarantees that the government won't imprison you or fine you for free speech. It doesn't guarantee there won't be civil consequences.


edit on 20-5-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: jholt5638

The whole point of Freedom of the Press is if you don't like what this newspaper has to say you can find one you do like or if you can't find one you're free to print your own.

Freedom of Speech is actually Freedom of Unpopular Speech. Why would popular speech or views need protection? You want Freedom of speech because you're not always going to like the guys in charge.

You want to be able to freely say you don't like those guys even when those guys are the ones in charge. What is popular today may not be popular tomorrow. The Freedom of Speech & the Press is our protection for tomorrow.


Please, avoid the main stream BS and say what you really mean. FFS



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker


a reply to: jholt5638

Most of the press is owned by three companies.

That's hardly free.


Last I heard it was six companies owning 90% of US media but in any case, media consolidation is bad. It's not quite as simple as saying there are only 6 options though. The same analysis turned up somewhere around 230-40 CEOs within that estimated 90%. Down at the level of editor — where it counts the absolute most — there are tens of thousands of them.

If it weren't for antitrust laws, we'd be down to 2 or 3 because that's how market conslidation works in a free market.

If you want more diversity in media ownership, encourage people to frequent independent outlets.



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I apologize if I came off that way. That is the other side of it. You must willing to accept the consequences for your speech.



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   
So if all of these so-called memos and anonymous sources are proven to not exist, would this then be the biggest libel case in the US history?



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 06:38 PM
link   
I also find it funny that there is so much anti 1st amendment on a conspiracy forum. Without it a place like this wouldn't exist



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth



Freedom does not offer a licence to break the law.


Unpopular speech, even lying isn't illegal.



Nowhere in the world can you say whatever you want without consequences you may not like.


The 1st Amendment guarantees that the government won't imprison you or fine you for free speech. It doesn't guarantee there won't be civil consequences.



There can also be legal ramifications for what you say.
Truly free speech does not exist anywhere on earth.
edit on 20/5/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Who said it did? We have anti-defamation laws. Ask the First Lady, she just settled lawsuits against Webster Tarpley and the Daily Mail. She was suing for what? $150 million in lost product endorsement contracts she expected to receive as part of her "once in a lifetime opportunity" (to enrich herself further) as First Lady.

I realize that might not quite be enough for an authoritarian like yourself. I suspect you'd rather Mr. Tarpley and the next two generations of his family were doing hard labor in a camp for repeating a rumor about Dear Leader's trophy wife.



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I would think so, there is a difference between slanting something a certain way and completely lying. If its proved to be a fabrication then yes I believe a charges of either criminal or civil in nature are certainly in order.



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


Freedom does not offer a licence to break the law with impunity.


Most speech is not illegal; hence why it is protected.


Nowhere in the world can you say whatever you want without consequences you may not like.


But we are not other places in the world. And that's what makes America so unique and great, that we're not restrictive, and it's also one of the foundations of the first amendment and our democracy, so that unpopular (and especially of government critical) speech is not subject to punishment by the government. Unless you prefer America to be like authoritarian regimes that restrict what can and cannot be said against the government.

And one reason why they booked it away from...England.

The OP is 100% correct.
edit on 20-5-2017 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: UKTruth

Who said it did? We have anti-defamation laws. Ask the First Lady, she just settled lawsuits against Webster Tarpley and the Daily Mail. She was suing for what? $150 million in lost product endorsement contracts she expected to receive as part of her "once in a lifetime opportunity" (to enrich herself further) as First Lady.

I realize that might not quite be enough for an authoritarian like yourself. I suspect you'd rather Mr. Tarpley and the next two generations of his family were doing hard labor in a camp for repeating a rumor about Dear Leader's trophy wife.


Yes, I read that. Glad that they were punished and I hope they learn their lesson and are able to rehabilitate to become responsible members of society.



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: UKTruth


Freedom does not offer a licence to break the law with impunity.


Most speech is not illegal; hence why it is protected.


Nowhere in the world can you say whatever you want without consequences you may not like.


But we are not other places in the world. And that's what makes America so unique and great, that we're not restrictive, and it's also one of the foundations of the first amendment and our democracy, so that unpopular (and especially of government critical) speech is not subject to punishment by the government. Unless you prefer America to be like authoritarian regimes that restrict what can and cannot be said against the government.

And one reason why they booked it away from...England.

The OP is 100% correct.


Like I said, there are NO places on earth where there is truly free speech. If all speech were truly free there would be no consequences. Ask the guy who used the 'n' word in court recently and was jailed for 60 days on the spot.
edit on 20/5/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: UKTruth


Freedom does not offer a licence to break the law with impunity.


Most speech is not illegal; hence why it is protected.


Nowhere in the world can you say whatever you want without consequences you may not like.


But we are not other places in the world. And that's what makes America so unique and great, that we're not restrictive, and it's also one of the foundations of the first amendment and our democracy, so that unpopular (and especially of government critical) speech is not subject to punishment by the government. Unless you prefer America to be like authoritarian regimes that restrict what can and cannot be said against the government.

And one reason why they booked it away from...England.

The OP is 100% correct.


Liek I said, there are NO places on earth where there is truly free speech. If all speech were truly free there would be no consequences. Ask the guy who used the 'n' word in court recently and was jailed for 60 days on the spot.


Guess you missed the point.



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


So if all of these so-called memos and anonymous sources are proven to not exist, would this then be the biggest libel case in the US history?


Is Trump going to resign when they are confirmed? Are you and the Trumpkin bunch going to issue a slew of mea culpa threads?

Can James Comey sue Donald Trump and Sean Spicer for slander? How about Hillary? How about Podesta? There's a video on YouTube of Donald Trump slandering Podesta at a rally, claiming he said things that he did not in fact say. After that, Obama can sue Fox, 90% of Democrats can sue Matt Druge. You can sue me and I'll sue you.

It'll be great.




top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join