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.

 

Should someone be arrested for their beliefs?

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Ghost147


If you believe Bud Light is beer you should not only be arrested but you should be water boarded after. With Bud Light of course.


Nice bottle though...probably cost more to make than the pee inside. (any arrests made should be for being pretentious)
edit on 15-9-2017 by smurfy because: Text.




posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy
Nice bottle though...probably cost more to make than the pee inside.


Thank the marketing department which is probably the main reason why many people still drink this swill.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147
What's with this in thing at the moment, nazi this nazi that? Why bring nazi in to it?
Every totalitarian state has done this from nazi to communist to certain religious controlled countries that I wont name, they've all done their fair share of persecuting people for their beliefs. So stop ramping just the nazi theme.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Beliefs should not be infringed upon. Everyone is entitled to believe what they want. It is how they ACT on them in our society that dictates arrest or not. Lets we be like the salem witch trials, or the Nazi's to a degree.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Ghost147
IF those beliefs are harmful to other's, not self defensive but actually directly harmful to other's then emphatically yes.


How do you determine which Muslims might blow you up and which won't?



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Just pondering this question makes me angry



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Ghost147


If you believe Bud Light is beer you should not only be arrested but you should be water boarded after. With Bud Light of course.

Then stung with jellyfish.... then healed.
But I guess that would be the same as Bud Light.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jefferton
You should be arrested for your actions, not for your beliefs.


Problem is, writing down or speaking your beliefs is an Action.

And it's not fully protected.
I was arrested for writing something down.

I avoided conviction but it sure destroyed my life facing allegations that I wrote something down that someone TOTALLY MISINTERPRETED and cherry picked certain quotes to misconstrue everything into a false light scenario.

Example (but not my situation):

Person overhears:
"Yeah man, hahaha, let's go rob that bank and shoot everyone"
They then call the police and start making accusations.

Actual context:
"I really love GTA V mods, this game is awesome. Yeah man, hahaha, lets go rob that bank and shoot everyone. I'll bring the helicopter, just make sure to use the rocket launcher when the army shows up!"

Sorta a poor example but you get the point.

It's really easy to pull a tiny snip outta what someone's saying and construe it as evidence of real life crime, especially these days with all of the media/games/films etc.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 11:08 AM
link   
those hiding behind technicalities, always have sinister thoughts....
it's never to provide a cure or make charitable donations or any altruistic tendencies.... it's always a way to be devious and get away with it..

the human psyche is a marvelous (thankfully unreplicable in nature) wonder.

no one ever says, i have freedom of speech, let's help those people or let's do something positive
....
it's always used as an umbrella to get away with things they'd cringe to shout loudly in public...
edit on 15-9-2017 by odzeandennz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: crayzeed


What's with this in thing at the moment, nazi this nazi that? Why bring nazi in to it?

It's because of the current affairs nature.
S.J.Res.49 - A joint resolution condemning the violence and domestic terrorist attack that took place during events between August 11 and August 12, 2017, in Charlottesville, Virginia
Latest Action: 09/14/2017 Signed by President


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress—
...
(6) rejects White nationalism, White supremacy, and neo-Nazism as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values that define the people of the United States; and

(7) urges—

(A) the President and his administration to—

(i) speak out against hate groups that espouse racism, extremism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, and White supremacy; and

(B) the Attorney General to work with—

(i) the Secretary of Homeland Security to investigate thoroughly all acts of violence, intimidation, and domestic terrorism by White supremacists, White nationalists, neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, and associated groups in order to determine if any criminal laws have been violated and to prevent those groups from fomenting and facilitating additional violence; and

(ii) the heads of other Federal agencies to improve the reporting of hate crimes and to emphasize the importance of the collection, and the reporting to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, of hate crime data by State and local agencies.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash

Lets turn this issue around a little

What if it was determined by investigation of say Micheal Mann. Lets say that his hockey stick data, which wiped out the Medieval Warming Period in direct contraction of written and depicted history and sparked global hysteria on the topic of anthropogenic catastrophic global warming. And this hysteria let to the wasting of public funds to the tune of hundreds and billions of dollars.

Should Micheal Mann be put into jail for his "beliefs"?

How about James Hansen, the father of the anthropogenic catastrophic global warming movement?

How about Al Gore/

All of these people has core beliefs that after 30 years turned out to be unsupported by real world observations. All of these people's belief cost huge sums of money world wide.

Should they be criminalized?



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

No.

Because like Al Capone, you can still nail them on something else.

And I bet with those characters you mentioned, there are dozens of something else to get them for.
If not a litany of hundreds of something elses.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Think about it this way:

Should Al Capone have been arrested for believing that mafia violence, conspiracy, racketeering, and secret murder was the solution to his financial problems?

Or should he be arrested for actually committing a real crime?



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

Then stung with jellyfish.... then healed.
But I guess that would be the same as Bud Light.


Pretty much. It's like sex in a canoe.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 11:59 AM
link   
This isn't a black and white answer. Imagine a person who reveals that they believe god wants them to go on a killing spree and that they will go to hell if they don't do it. They also reveal that they know how to make all sorts of bombs and chemicals that could kill quite alot of people. Now, let's assume they haven't revealed any intention to do so; you in fact have no idea what their intention is. Let's also assume that you have no idea whether the person is mentally healthy or not. For all you know, they could be completely sane, but have just come upon this belief through various life circumstances. Should you just ignore this person and go on your way with the idea that belief must not be punished? Or should you report this person to relevant authorities, knowing they may be sent to a mental hospital or jail against their will?
Some beliefs are in fact dangerous, and do cause harm. One example is "faith-healing" parents who refuse to let their sick children receive basic medical care on the belief that god will heal them instead, resulting in the children suffering and dying. This exact scenario has happened many times, and yet there is always a debate about whether or not these people should be punished.
Should we punish some beliefs, even if they have not yet led to action? Yes, I say, because some beliefs simply are idiotic. It is my opinion that we should not entertain obvious idiocy. The problem, however, is coming to a consensus about which beliefs should be punished, and what punishment is appropriate. It will be a very slippery slope that could get way out of hand very quickly, but we can't just sit back and let people do whatever they want to do based on whatever ridiculously asinine beliefs they have. We can't just let religious parents continue torturing and killing their children, for example, by withholding basic medical care.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash

I wonder though, if those AGW masterminds used our tax dollars for their research and publications, will that hold them to another level of accountability? What about the businesses they have and will continue to destroy with their quack theories?

What if they are intentionally misrepresenting data in such a way that causes negative effects to our environment, even if it is just monetary?

hmmmmm



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: trollz

Wow, that was a really good and well thought out scenario.

Have you thought of any answers? How do you define the moment where thoughts and beliefs become detrimental to another person's free will?

What rights are the parents afforded compared to the rights of a child?

What freedoms should a society have? How big will a group of people need to be before they are fully responsible for their own destiny? Are other people obligated to interfere if they have different values or will that interference always be a greater sin itself?



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 01:17 PM
link   
If we shun speech because it offends, where does it end? Just because it offends you doesn't mean it should be forbidden. That kind of social insecurity runs rampant these days and is very concerning. We will end up being that which we hate the most...and our freedoms will wither without so much as a shot being fired, all in the name of anothers feelings. We've become a nation of butt-hurt emotional bandies.

Just using this to prove a point, Imma huge trekkie and this quote from Picard came to mind.

"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie, as wisdom and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. (Star Trek's Patrick Stewart)



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ClovenSky

If what you do (not what you say cause sticks and stones and all that) hinders anothers personal freedoms physically, then you can browse legality. but if its not hurting or impeding anothers personal freedoms and rights? Who cares.

Thats why its called SELF esteem......it all has to do with self. Where do you draw that line between belief and words to the physical barment of another physically?



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 03:26 PM
link   
I'm surprised how many people actually want to institute thought criminalizing regimes.

Both sides in this debate have become lunatics.







 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join