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.

 

Judges control the media and violate the 1st amendment?

page: 1
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   
The tool I'm interested in putting under review is called the gagging order or suppression order. Of the two terms, I'd think "suppression" should cause any of us alarm immediately. Naturally as free citizens, we'd like to know what is being surpressed and why. You and I may not have the ability to speak our minds as we wish despite the guarentee of the constitution. Additionally, all information is subjected to filtration by courts.

"In a similar manner, a 'gag law' may limit freedom of the press, by instituting censorship or restricting access to information." (en.wikipedia.org...)

The word above the bothers me most about the above quote is "may", which seems to mean "is allowed to" or is under "proper authority to".

This all stemmed from the following video reporting on the abortion murders, but I have to wonder just how far-reaching (and in what other areas of society) these orders extend:


Also from wikipedia, "The government has issued hundreds of thousands of such NSLs accompanied with gag orders. The gag orders have been upheld in court."

Hundreds of thousands, do you think this a problem? Why or why not? What is the justification? How does one reconcile this with the U.S. Constitution?
edit on 18-9-2017 by saint4God because: Clarity, grammar




posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: saint4God


Do you understand the concept of "slander" and "libel" laws?
edit on 18-9-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: saint4God
Do you understand the concept of "slander" and "libel" laws?


Conceptionally, but welcome more education & eager to learn. Being that Planned Parenthood is 'non-profit', the organization doesn't really have anything to lose since they don't have customers. Otherwise, we all get called names and experience character assassination without recourse because of free speech.
edit on 18-9-2017 by saint4God because: Less pronouns



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: saint4God



Being that Planned Parenthood is 'non-profit', the organization doesn't really have anything to lose since they don't have customers.


They have patients.

So, it's okay to slander non-profit organization's employees?



Otherwise, we all get called names and experience character assassination without recourse because of free speech.


Everyone has recourse to defamation, through the very courts you want to limit.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: saint4God

The only "law" is natural law. Everything else is UCC codes as determined by man.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
They have patients.

So, it's okay to slander non-profit organization's employees?


I thought the idea of the proceeding was to determine if there is slander in the first place, which is "false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation." Primarily because the only one doing the speaking in these videos is Planned Parenthood (or previous employees regarding their experience). Secondarily, I don't know where the first amendment ends and slander begins since the Constitution does not address the issue of slander or an end to the First Amendment.


originally posted by: windword
Everyone has recourse to defamation, through the very courts you want to limit.


If the courts are as bias as the point being established here, what chance does anyone have? Catch 22, " if the thing lost is one's glasses, one can't see to look for them". en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 18-9-2017 by saint4God because: Clarity, less pronouns



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: saint4God

Of course they do, this legal system is void.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: saint4God



I thought the idea of the proceeding was to determine if there is slander in the first place, which is "false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation."


I'm pretty sure this is old news, and the maker of the videos has been exposed for editing and falsifying his credentials and the nature of the conversations. But, believe what you want to believe about Planned Parenthood, the law is the law. Abortion is legal and donation of fetal tissue is legal.



Secondarily, I don't know where the first amendment ends and slander begins since the Constitution does not address the issue of slander or an end to the First Amendment.


Damages!



If the courts are as bias as the point being established here


No, it hasn't been established that the courts are biased.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: saint4God




Being that Planned Parenthood is 'non-profit', the organization doesn't really have anything to lose since they don't have customers.


So, you don't know what non-profit means either?



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: windword




I'm pretty sure this is old news, and the maker of the videos has been exposed for editing and falsifying his credentials and the nature of the conversations. But, believe what you want to believe about Planned Parenthood, the law is the law. Abortion is legal and donation of fetal tissue is legal


Any proof?



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




So, you don't know what non-profit means either?


He said customers. Non-profits do not have customers since no one purchases anything from them.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: 3daysgone

Oh.
That explains everything. Wait...That means Goodwill is not a non-profit?

edit on 9/18/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 09:21 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 3daysgone

Oh.
That explains everything. Wait...That means Goodwill is not a non-profit?


Now your starting to get it. Goodwill is in fact not a non profit.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

And? They still have no customers. They have patients that do not pay as a customer would.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: 3daysgone

Double negatives are confusing.

If you're serious, you too do not know what a non-profit is.

edit on 9/18/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 3daysgone

Double negatives are confusing.

If you're serious, you too do not know what a non-profit is.

I


You may be right.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: saint4God


Secondarily, I don't know where the first amendment ends and slander begins since the Constitution does not address the issue of slander or an end to the First Amendment.


Damages!


Such as?



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
So, you don't know what non-profit means either?


I thought I did, but what piece am I missing?



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: saint4God

Being a non-profit has nothing to do with having "customers" or not.

Simply put, it means that, at the end of your fiscal year, the company cannot have not made a profit. And thus is not subject to income taxes.

edit on 9/18/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join