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.

 

It seems like a little refresher of what "Freedom of Speech" means is needed

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 12:42 PM
link   
One thing I keep seeing pop up in "defense" of the Unite the Right protest this weekend is people using a convoluted argument of "freedom of speech".

Either they argue that the issue wasn't the "Unite the Right", but it was instead the counter protesters trying to take away "Unite the Right"s freedom of speech. Or they give the good ol' "Well I don't support their message, but I support their freedom of speech".

Let's all take a step back and remember what "Freedom of speech" entails. Quite simply, it is the 1st amendment.



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.


There...that's it...nothing more, nothing less.

There is nothing saying that "If Neo-Nazi's want to protest, everyone has to shut up and like it". It doesn't say, "If someone is protesting on a given day, then no one else can protest against them". It doesn't say, "You can have any disgusting view you want and publicly declare it without facing any consequences....like being fired."

"Freedom of Speech" involves one thing and one thing only...the GOVERNMENT will not create laws that prohibit your freedom of speech. That's it.

Hopefully, not really, this will end some of the illogical arguments of people claiming they are only supporting White Supremacists "freedom of speech".




posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

Solid point, there are too many people on this site who are ignorant to the fact that the Constitution is not a list of things we can do but a list of things the government cannot do.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
One thing I keep seeing pop up in "defense" of the Unite the Right protest this weekend is people using a convoluted argument of "freedom of speech".

Either they argue that the issue wasn't the "Unite the Right", but it was instead the counter protesters trying to take away "Unite the Right"s freedom of speech. Or they give the good ol' "Well I don't support their message, but I support their freedom of speech".

Let's all take a step back and remember what "Freedom of speech" entails. Quite simply, it is the 1st amendment.



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.


There...that's it...nothing more, nothing less.

There is nothing saying that "If Neo-Nazi's want to protest, everyone has to shut up and like it". It doesn't say, "If someone is protesting on a given day, then no one else can protest against them". It doesn't say, "You can have any disgusting view you want and publicly declare it without facing any consequences....like being fired."

"Freedom of Speech" involves one thing and one thing only...the GOVERNMENT will not create laws that prohibit your freedom of speech. That's it.

Hopefully, not really, this will end some of the illogical arguments of people claiming they are only supporting White Supremacists "freedom of speech".


Utterly false. First amendment protects free speech, it isn't the same as free speech. Rookie mistake. You need more than a refresher.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope




Utterly false. First amendment protects free speech, it isn't the same as free speech. Rookie mistake. You need more than a refresher.


Oh please...go on.

Please enlighten us on how "free speech" should protect a Neo-Nazi from being fired.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

Quite a lot of people seem cower behind freedom of speech, they abuse it, use it as a excuse to be really quite nasty people.

I think its important to remember that freedom comes with responsibility, seems to me like these days a lot of people have forgotten about the other side of the coin of freedom.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: kruphix



I have no problem, with people making asses out of themselves. They can do it all day long. As long as lines are not crossed. Neo Nazis are nuts. They hate, to just hate.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

No is suggesting you can't counter protest. The problem is violence. Are you an adult? Do you really need this explained to you? I don't care if someone is saluting whoever, it doesn't give anyone else a riggt to assault them. The irony is that, even though the radical right spoke a big game, it was (and has been) predominantly the left that actually acts most like Nazis... using violence to either silence dissenting opinions, or to generally intimidate people they don't agree with. Go on Facebook and I bet you can scroll for a minute without seeing comments from the left about how its okay to,l assault neo Nazis because that's who we fought against in WW2, or some other ignorant bull#. We didn't fight Nazis because of the words they used, in case you need a history lesson too.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: LesMisanthrope




Utterly false. First amendment protects free speech, it isn't the same as free speech. Rookie mistake. You need more than a refresher.


Oh please...go on.

Please enlighten us on how "free speech" should protect a Neo-Nazi from being fired.


Go on about how you thought the first amendment was the same as free speech? Sure. It's not. And the fact you believe free speech pertains only to the government illustrates not only how little you care about speech, but also the double standards.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: kruphix

Solid point, there are too many people on this site who are ignorant to the fact that the Constitution is not a list of things we can do but a list of things the government cannot do.



You are exactly right but the key words in the exact verbiage is "peaceably assemble"
The police should have been there in force to make sure that the peaceable assembly of these brain dead retards didn't escalate into what it did.
There has been news stories of a police "stand down".
Why?



“There was no police presence,” Ms. Caine-Conley said. “We were watching people punch each other; people were bleeding all the while police were inside of barricades at the park, watching. It was essentially just brawling on the street and community members trying to protect each other.


www.nytimes.com...
edit on 14-8-2017 by RazorV66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: bender151
a reply to: kruphix

No is suggesting you can't counter protest. The problem is violence. Are you an adult? Do you really need this explained to you? I don't care if someone is saluting whoever, it doesn't give anyone else a riggt to assault them. The irony is that, even though the radical right spoke a big game, it was (and has been) predominantly the left that actually acts most like Nazis... using violence to either silence dissenting opinions, or to generally intimidate people they don't agree with. Go on Facebook and I bet you can scroll for a minute without seeing comments from the left about how its okay to,l assault neo Nazis because that's who we fought against in WW2, or some other ignorant bull#. We didn't fight Nazis because of the words they used, in case you need a history lesson too.


It wasn't those on the Left or counter protesters that ran people down with a car that they didn't agree with.

The problem is, some people are blaming the counter protests for the deaths caused by the "Unite the Right". Their irrational logic is, "Well if they would have just let Unite The Right protest without coming out to counter protest, that guy wouldn't have drove his car into them and those people wouldn't have died". They make this argument out of "freedom of speech"...claiming the counter protesters were taking away Unite The Right's freedom of speech...so in a sense they are justifying the deaths because of that.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix

There is nothing saying that "If Neo-Nazi's want to protest, everyone has to shut up and like it". It doesn't say, "If someone is protesting on a given day, then no one else can protest against them". It doesn't say, "You can have any disgusting view you want and publicly declare it without facing any consequences....like being fired."

"Freedom of Speech" involves one thing and one thing only...the GOVERNMENT will not create laws that prohibit your freedom of speech. That's it.



Agreed...if you have something to say then say it. DNC wanted to establish a politcally correct society and cause hate to those who speak freely. Take for example BLM and their protests/riots? Where was the backlash in MSM on this? Why didn't Obama condemn this?


edit on 14-8-2017 by Skywatcher2011 because: added video



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 12:58 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: RazorV66
You are exactly right but the key words in the exact verbiage is "peaceably assemble"
The police should have been there in force to make sure that the peaceable assembly of these brain dead retards didn't escalate into what it did.


None of that runs counter to what I said, the Constitution does not give a prescriptive list of things you can or cannot do, it only applies to what the government can or cannot do. There are Supreme Court rulings on the limitations of free speech and almost all types of violent behavior is one of them.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Of course people have a right to counter protest. They just don't have the right to violently do so or interfere with the other sides right to do the same. I don't really care about either of these groups honestly...if the KKK Nazi people wanna get out there in public so we have records of who they are...fantastic! If antifa wanna get out there and do the same...great! When they decide to get violent arrests need to he made for all those who commit violent acts, sort who was acting in defense later.

Those I do feel bad for are the history buffs who were probably there actually trying to defend historical monuments ( there are a lot of civil war buffs in the area ). Those guys got the raw end of the whole ordeal, most likely undeservidly...I doubt those guys were the racist kkk type.

Pretty sure the authorities could have done a much better job of preventing most of the violence, but from how it appears they just lumped all the protesters together knowing full well what would happen...probably because they didn't like either group.

BTW I grew up in the state and visited the area quite a lot and this whole saga is not very representative of the type of people I've met around there...that area is much more of a hippy type of mountain town from what I've seen.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Skywatcher2011

BLM is a movement to raise awareness about police brutality against young black people. That is their official message. Some protests turned violent, which is wrong...and yes, Obama did condemn the protests that turned violent.

KKK/Neo-Nazis/White Supremacist is a movement of hate.


But you don't see the difference...right? And instead of staying on topic...of course you deflect to BLM and Obama...LOL.


www.nytimes.com...
edit on 14-8-2017 by kruphix because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: kruphix



I have no problem, with people making asses out of themselves. They can do it all day long. As long as lines are not crossed. Neo Nazis are nuts. They hate, to just hate.



Ummm...I know...it's exactly like...say...antifa...or the lefties protesting Trump...via smashing and burning and blocking ambulances from proceeding...You know all that hate on display from the left side of the divide...

I'm quite sure I read you disclaiming their activities at the time...oh wait...

Not so much...?

Silly me...



YouSir



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

BS...they're a group of some of the most disgusting racist black people just as bad as Neo Nazis or KKK people. They tried to hide it under a very thin veil but I'm pretty sure we have enough live video footage to show the true colors. Maybe there was a small part of BLM who weren't about all the racism however they got flooded out by far and I haven't seen any footage of them standing up to the majority racist portion of that movement in any of the video footage I've seen of them being disfusting racists, unless you got some.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: RickyD

You seem to be operating under the assumption that the violence was caused by the counter protesters in Virginia. Can you tell me which side killed people with their car?




Those I do feel bad for are the history buffs who were probably there actually trying to defend historical monuments ( there are a lot of civil war buffs in the area ). Those guys got the raw end of the whole ordeal, most likely undeservidly...I doubt those guys were the racist kkk type.


I don't feel bad for them...why would they attend an obvious White Supremacist protest if they are only concerned about preserving history? Why not set up their own non-White Supremacist protest? If they went to that protest, they knew what they were joining. And these statues aren't being destroyed, just re-located and not out in public.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Whataboutism:


Whataboutism is a propaganda technique formerly used by the Soviet Union in its dealings with the Western world, and subsequently used as a form of propaganda in post-Soviet Russia. When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world


Linkypoo just for you




posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

Are you saying that some people don't have a right to freely express themselves?




top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join