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.

 

University of Tampa fires teacher whose tweet blamed Harvey on Texas GOP vote

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Citizens United: Money is a form of free speech.
University of Tampa used their freedom of speech to decide they would no longer be giving money to this professor.

You either defend the principle from all attacks, or you don't. You either believe in the principle, or you don't.

See how this works?




posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

You brought up the amendment assuming immediately that's what they meant by "free speech".

Careful, you might just forget all together



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Speech and thought are two very separate things. One is private and personal. The other is vocalized through a variety of mediums that is made public through their own volition.

There may be consequences for one, but never consequences for the other.


Thoughts and speech are intimately connected, and not separate at all.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Citizens United: Money is a form of free speech.
University of Tampa used their freedom of speech to decide they would no longer be giving money to this professor.

You either defend the principle from all attacks, or you don't. You either believe in the principle, or you don't.

See how this works?


Money is not speech. Money is a medium of exchange.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: burdman30ott6




The amendment protects the principle from very specific attack... outside of that, the principle is on it's own.


Either you defend it from all attacks, or you don't. You either believe in the principle; or you don't.


It's not that simple. As it is said, one's rights end when another's begins.

One does not have the right to say what they want when it interferes or comes to the detriment of someone else's right, such as private property rights.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert




Speech and thought are two very separate things. One is private and personal. The other is vocalized through a variety of mediums that is made public through their own volition.

There may be consequences for one, but never consequences for the other.


Thoughts and speech are intimately connected, and not separate at all.


They are connected, but different as well.

Thought is purely free. There is no consequence or should there be for individual thought, no matter how henious.

Speech is an act of choice in which the individual chooses to make their thoughts public, through a variety of mediums.

There may be consequences for that act.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Firing people for tweets is just the beginning. I suspect eventually people will be fired for thoughts.


I liken it as "hurt speech".

You can now be punished if you say something hurtful.




posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




It's not that simple. As it is said, one's rights end when another's begins.

One does not have the right to say what they want when it interferes or comes to the detriment of someone else's right, such as private property rights.


Again I'm not speaking of rights.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert




It's not that simple. As it is said, one's rights end when another's begins.

One does not have the right to say what they want when it interferes or comes to the detriment of someone else's right, such as private property rights.


Again I'm not speaking of rights.


Then it is a philosophical argument that has very little basis in reality. While it may be true, in a philosophical sense, it does not equate to the real world.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




They are connected, but different as well.

Thought is purely free. There is no consequence or should there be for individual thought, no matter how henious.

Speech is an act of choice in which the individual chooses to make their thoughts public, through a variety of mediums.

There may be consequences for that act.


There are consequences for every act. But firing someone is the consequence of choosing to fire someone, not the speech.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Then it is a philosophical argument that has very little basis in reality. While it may be true, in a philosophical sense, it does not equate to the real world.


Again, it's a principle. Choosing not to kill someone is another principle, that doesn't mean it doesn't have a basis in reality.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Hazardous1408




But sorry (not sorry) if someone speaks out of turn with someone I love they're gonna get a slap.


Just like when someone mocks the prophet, they're going to be murdered.


I didn't say murder.

And chances are if you mock any Prophet in front of me, I'll just laugh at you.
edit on 30-8-2017 by Hazardous1408 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



Again, it's a principle. Choosing not to kill someone is another principle, that doesn't mean it doesn't have a basis in reality.


Again, true. But the choice is still there and sometimes people choose not to follow that principle. There are consequences for that.

Though, I don't think your example is comparable to the act of speech.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408




I didn't say murder.

And chances are if you mock any Prophet in front of me, I'll just laugh at you.


You suggested violence against people for expressing themselves, correct?



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Again, true. But the choice is still there and sometimes people choose not to follow that principle. There are consequences for that.

Though, I don't think your example is comparable to the act of speech.


Any action you commit, for instance firing me for tweeting, is the consequence of your own choices.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Hazardous1408




I didn't say murder.

And chances are if you mock any Prophet in front of me, I'll just laugh at you.


You suggested violence against people for expressing themselves, correct?


I suggested a slap...

You brought up murder.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408




I suggested a slap...

You brought up murder.


If you can justify slapping someone because you're offended, it is within the bounds of reason that someone could justify murder for the exact same reasons.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So someone starts talking sh*t to your Wife...

And you're just gonna say "I'll defend to the death your right to say it"...

Have you no honour?



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert




Again, true. But the choice is still there and sometimes people choose not to follow that principle. There are consequences for that.

Though, I don't think your example is comparable to the act of speech.


Any action you commit, for instance firing me for tweeting, is the consequence of your own choices.


So it appears you are trying to make the argument that there are no consequences for our words or actions, only consequences for or by those that react to our words or actions.

If so, not based in reality.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408




So someone starts talking sh*t to your Wife...

And you're just gonna say "I'll defend to the death your right to say it"...

Have you no honour?


Plenty of honour, not to mention composure in the face of adversity. I would give him a taste of his own medicine. Sometimes a fight is what they want. And you would give it to them?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join