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.

 

Black Lives Matter Protesters Shut Down ACLU Freedom of Speech Event

page: 3
31
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: TDawg61
BLM exercising their free speech rights by denying the same to others.
Sickening.


They gave BLM their say and BLM left, so why didn't they continue after that?




posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: TDawg61
BLM exercising their free speech rights by denying the same to others.
Sickening.


They gave BLM their say and BLM left, so why didn't they continue after that?

Fear?



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: TDawg61

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: TDawg61
BLM exercising their free speech rights by denying the same to others.
Sickening.


They gave BLM their say and BLM left, so why didn't they continue after that?

Fear?


All they have to do is call campus security, so - nope.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight
They gave BLM their say and BLM left, so why didn't they continue after that?


Try again.

This time, even try reading the OP's source!



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

But people sure were calling for them to be censored! You deny that then you're just a liar. And I've already criticized BLM for what they did, they're wrong for it.

So again, what are the left and right if not political parties/ideologies? You avoided it again.
edit on 10/5/2017 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 10:25 AM
link   
iron knee.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: InTheLight
They gave BLM their say and BLM left, so why didn't they continue after that?


Try again.

This time, even try reading the OP's source!


I did, and they caved in too easily. What about standing one's ground?



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight
I did, and they caved in too easily.

Laughable. If you had, you wouldn't have changed your claim in the span of 3 posts.


What about standing one's ground?

What about not making BS claims?

Where would you like to move your goal posts too next? That way >? No, maybe that way



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: InTheLight
I did, and they caved in too easily.

Laughable. If you had, you wouldn't have changed your claim in the span of 3 posts.


What about standing one's ground?

What about not making BS claims?

Where would you like to move your goal posts too next? That way >? No, maybe that way



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: InTheLight
I did, and they caved in too easily.

Laughable. If you had, you wouldn't have changed your claim in the span of 3 posts.


What about standing one's ground?

What about not making BS claims?

Where would you like to move your goal posts too next? That way >? No, maybe that way



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Let's take this thread into a little more context.




Some people, including Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, leveled blame at the ACLU for the resulting violence.


www.cnn.com...



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: TDawg61
BLM exercising their free speech rights by denying the same to others.
Sickening.


They gave BLM their say and BLM left, so why didn't they continue after that?


If you notice, there was hardly any attendees. After that they are virtue bound to give up the event after being "Trumped" by another leftist organization that has more street cred.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Butterfinger

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: TDawg61
BLM exercising their free speech rights by denying the same to others.
Sickening.


They gave BLM their say and BLM left, so why didn't they continue after that?


If you notice, there was hardly any attendees. After that they are virtue bound to give up the event after being "Trumped" by another leftist organization that has more street cred.


I doubt that is the reason, and why haven't they bothered to reschedule?



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
BLM wants to stop this free speech rally which is wrong, others want to stop NFL players right to free speech by punishing them which is wrong.

Seems people don't fully understand how free speech works.

BLM's protesters successfully stopped free speech, shut down the rally. Protesters are not shutting down the speech of players on the field. Individuals aren't running onto the field obstructing the players speech/gestures. Counter protesters storming the playing field would be dragged away/arrested. The speech of players is protected, where was the protection for the ACLU speaker?

Boycotting to shut down players protesting on the job is different and the correct approach. It could go either way and the players could speak freely at another venue, speech isn't being silenced. Fans pay to attend or tune into sporting events to be entertained not to be preached too. Essentially fans have become a captive audience for political/social issues. That's where it gets slippery imo.

People attending the game can plug their ears, leave/ask for their money back, sit quietly, hold up a sign or boycott. People watching at home can change the channel, mute the sound or boycott. What they cannot do is physically obstruct the protest/speech but that's exactly what BLM protesters are doing.

At the beginning of the tape the ACLU speaker was very ok with protesters lining up in front of the stage to exercise their rights but drowning out the speaker isn't how free speech works. Standing there like well mannered citizens while holding protest signs is what the law allows.

Silencing people by shouting over them is a self-serving, one sided mutant version of free speech. Apparently it works for them but I'm just not feeling the freedom.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Morningglory

If they broke the law why was law enforcement not called in?



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Morningglory

Yet if those people had their way like the BLM people did then those players would be censored. One succeeded, the other didn't but they were still looking for the same result.

Same same. Maybe people are mad that BLM did what they couldn't accomplish themselves? Either way both had the aim to censor free speech. That's my point, both only want free speech when it suits their preferences.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

But people sure were calling for them to be censored! You deny that then you're just a liar. And I've already criticized BLM for what they did, they're wrong for it.

So again, what are the left and right if not political parties/ideologies? You avoided it again.


I just re-read the entire thread and found no criticism of your regarding any censorship by BLM.

The Left is a political party in Germany, but the commonly used terms "the right" and "the left" are neither political parties or political ideologies.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 11:59 AM
link   
We still need to stop referring to "BLM" as a cohesive thing, but, I will say that among some this seems to be a growing trend: co-opting events of likely allies. Actually does push them toward being truly "leftist" as such things go.

They should have been removed by security or the police.

Fine to protest, fine to be activists, but if part of that activism is breaking the law (and this is) then so be it.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

I imagine it's because it's a private venue/sponsors allowed the protest. As long as the speaker was paid and the terms of the contract met, no laws were broken.

If the venue owner didn't ok the protest, LE could be called and the protesters would be asked to leave or they could be arrested/charged with trespass.

If protesters were allowed into the venue and no action was taken to keep them from violently attacking the speaker, the venue owner could be held liable. That's probably why the decision was made to just shut it down. It was too late to un-invite the rowdy bunch without violence breaking out. Just my opinion of course.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Do you remember the guy at the John Kerry speech who asked the wrong question and immediately got the "don't taze me bro!" treatment?

That is exactly what these BLM jerks deserve until they stop being such inconsiderable A-holes.







 
31
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join