It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Live Stream-Dallas Texas-Anti White Supremacy Rally

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 11:49 PM

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

But remember 20000 thousand people protested against free speech in Boston today.

I had not heard that those protesters were advocating for the government to curtail free speech.

Have a link?

No they used violence and intimidation to stop people who wanted to attend a free speech rally.

As I feared. You don't understand the 1st amendment.

I understand it just fine.

Where did I mention it?

I said they had a protest against free speech.

They used violence to stop people from attending.

Again, you appear to not understand what free speech is and how it is protected by the Constitution.

I had not seen one person protest in favor of the government suppressing free speech.

That is what the 1st amendment is about.

Free speech does not mean you can say anything you want and people can't counter that with their own speech.

So it appears you are simply complaining about people using their speech, which you disagree with, to counter those that you do.

No. I am comparing that they used violence and intimidationmidation to stop speech they didn't like.

Also many said the rally was hate speech and should not have been allowed to happen.

Both are acts of censorship.

Not allowed to happen by whom? The government?

Even hate speech should be allowed without government interference, even if it's a bunch of WS-Nazis.

Like I said, you don't know jack about free speech and constitutional rights.

So if I punch you so that you can't give a speech, I have not attacked your freedom of speech?

No. You've committed a crime by physically attacking me.

Your motive in attacking me does not apply to the constitutional concept of free speech. Again, it's a restriction on the government and what it can do.

I thought you knew this.

The right to free speech is actually a much older, broader concept than the First Amendment. Like other fundamental human rights, it’s something people innately possess (including all those non-Americans you may have heard of), and it exists independently of any government.

Which means free speech is not only about what the government can or can’t do. The right to free speech means it’s wrong for any entity, governmental or not, to try to silence you.

Unfortunately, I think a lot of people parroting this point aren’t grasping the finer details, and coming to believe that as long as it’s not a government agency censoring you, then anything goes. I’ve even seen the sentiment expressed that censorship can only be done by the government, which simply isn’t true. There are many other entities that can censor you. They may not be legally inhibiting your freedom of speech, but they are inhibiting it, and in some cases it can be just as wrong as when the government does it.

But this type of argument is missing a major point. “People will say free speech only extends to an action of the government, and that’s not right,” Greg Lukianoff, president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, told Salon.


Furthermore, there are ways the First Amendment can be applied that don’t specifically concern laws being made that affect speech. In the spirit of protecting First Amendment rights, the government must prevent speech from being silenced when that is possible.

The government has to prevent an angry mob from preventing a person from exercising his or her First Amendment rights. “When it comes to preventing mob rule, the main function of the government is to make sure that people with unpopular views aren’t silenced,” Lukianoff said. “You can have mob censorship.”

Lukianoff has written about an old concept called the “heckler’s veto,” which is when speech is silenced to prevent a violent response from others.

posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 11:51 PM
a reply to: scraedtosleep

Your rights and freedoms end where another begins. There are boundaries.

posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 12:26 AM
a reply to: scraedtosleep

I have learned a lot about antifa today. They seem like nothing but a bunch of board ignorant kids prone to violence when they don't get their way. Is it just me or is this

No, unfortunately that about it..not much better than the Nazi's(I despise the Nazi's with every fibre) ..some probably think they are doing the right thing but I think most are just rent a thug's looking to cause chaos.

posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 12:44 AM
A "right" is something invented by man, and a part of the larger social contract that encompasses civilized society.

A "right" is a purely mental construct that is only valid if other people acknowledge and respect it.

I can claim I have the right to run around in public naked, but that doesn't mean it is valid. Other people, and society in general have to agree that running around naked is a "right" I and others can exercise.

Now, if you didn't live in a society at all -- say, in a cave all by yourself...sure, you can do whatever the hell you want. You wouldn't have any 'rights' because there would be no one else around who'd have to respect those 'rights'.

The idea of having 'rights' only comes into play when groups of humans live together, and agree as a group what things we all can/can't do and what actions are universally protected from being prohibited.

"No! God gave me these rights!" Ok...but those "rights" that you seem to think God gave you are only "rights" because the rest of us all agree that God gave them to you and the rest of us. Also, those "God given rights" only matter if everyone else respects them and acknowledges them.

posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 01:38 AM

originally posted by: Perfectenemy
Why do people constantly take their shirt off? Is that an american thing?

It's a bizarre practice of preparing for a physical altercation...don't want to get your shirt all bloody and whatnot, or give your opponent something to grab you and hold you by. Chicks take their earrings and stuff off around these parts too...after hair snatching, ripping out piercings is a popular thing to do. Can't tell you how many times I've treated ripped piercings in the ER after a drunken bar fight or whatever. It's a strange sort of almost universal dirty fighting behavior. I'm sure someone has done a study on it at some point.

posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 03:40 AM

originally posted by: incoserv

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: incoserv

That's a great story I really mean it.

But remember 20000 thousand people protested against free speech in Boston today.

Its not a small amount.

2000 out of 300,000,000.

Can you do math, dude? Lemme show you:

2000 / 321,100,000 = 0.00000622858922454

That's 0.000622858922454%

Yeah, that's a small amount. That's a damn small amount.

I'd bet that it's a much larger percentage of people who did nice things to other people across racial lines today, but you won't see those on the news.

Lol so unless the entire population of the USA attends one city to protest, then it's nothing?


20,000 is not a small number when you think about it clearly...

new topics

top topics
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in