It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
the only people against free speech are trump, cherry picking what people should be viewing and those neo-nazis unhappy people protest their circle jerks.
the tory party in my country are unhappy the media is reporting on the car crash that is brexit but they aren't telling people to view alex jones as the only truth speaker on the planet either.
What I am reading in to from your reply, is that the general stance is that we are all responsible for what we say and where that leads. In the meantime, no judgement should be released or dictated. To interfear with someone elses free speech, would only agitate. Of course, one is free to agitate, but one will one way or another face the consequences of that! which is totally natural and may I say cool! If you dont believe in anything being cool, thats cool aslo.a reply to:
It’s not a surprise to find it in the reasoning of would-be censors.
On the campaign trail, where he was not constrained by Twitter’s character limit, Mr. Trump was more expansive.
“I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money,” Mr. Trump said. “We’re going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected.”
Can Trump Change Libel Laws? MARCH 30, 2017
Which of those do you prefer to determine what you can and cannot say?
The crime would be poisoning people with strychnine, maybe aggravated assault, or murder.
your statement that censorship is a fact of life
Your distinction between ideological and free speech absolutism is not required
In the Althusserian sense, ideology is "the imaginary relation to the real conditions of existence".
For Althusser, beliefs and ideas are the products of social practices, not the reverse. His thesis that "ideas are material" is illustrated by the "scandalous advice" of Pascal toward unbelievers: "kneel and pray, and then you will believe". What is ultimately ideological for Althusser are not the subjective beliefs held in the conscious "minds" of human individuals, but rather discourses that produce these beliefs, the material institutions and rituals that individuals take part in without submitting it to conscious examination and critical thinking.
(Perhaps the most accessible source for the near-original meaning of ideology is Hippolyte Taine's work on the Ancien Régime (the first volume of "Origins of Contemporary France"). He describes ideology as rather like teaching philosophy by the Socratic method, but without extending the vocabulary beyond what the general reader already possessed, and without the examples from observation that practical science would require.
The term "ideology" has dropped some of its pejorative sting, and has become a neutral term in the analysis of differing political opinions and views of social groups
Sometimes civil disobedience provides the physical and observable example by which ideology is modified in the Althusserian sense, speaking even when not protected by law.
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.
What do you think is more effective to defend people's right to free speech in the US for example, protesting (rallies, etc.) or the following technique (note the ending)?