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.

 

Palace Intrigue and the Peeping Toms that Crave It.

page: 2
24
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Whereismypassword


your numerous campaigns about hate speech being free speech?


Hate speech in and of itself is generally protected speech/expression, unless it's a threat, directly incites violence, or in some cases if the expression is meant to directly intimidate.

Otherwise, I agree with you.




posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Very well written like always.


The british media is obsessed with Meghan and Harry. Its borderline creepy. They disect every inch of her previous life and i think they are just going too far. The MSM makes fun of tabloid trash all the time but what they failed to realize is that they are slowly transforming themselves into tabloid trash. I never want to be famous ever. They never leave you alone.



posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Whereismypassword


your numerous campaigns about hate speech being free speech?


Hate speech in and of itself is generally protected speech/expression, unless it's a threat, directly incites violence, or in some cases if the expression is meant to directly intimidate.

Otherwise, I agree with you.


Only in the US is it generally protected. The rest of the west has fallen into censorship.



posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Oh our human nature / subconscious, in my direct experience especially regarding groupthink / tribal urge. People seem to scatter when I get on the topic. But I find it most fascinating, its when we're all 'the same' the most like 'we all bleed red' kind of stuff.

Maybe I should switch back to Cognitive Biases & Fallacies for a while and see if get different results. Gotten kind rusty on those actually.



It’s a heavy topic. Frankly I don’t think we can get rid of tribalism, but maybe over time discredit it enough as a valid framework for thinking.



posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Whereismypassword


your numerous campaigns about hate speech being free speech?


Hate speech in and of itself is generally protected speech/expression, unless it's a threat, directly incites violence, or in some cases if the expression is meant to directly intimidate.

Otherwise, I agree with you.


Only in the US is it generally protected. The rest of the west has fallen into censorship.


Luckily, we have have the First Amendment. Thankfully, the SCOTUS, regardless of individual justices' political affiliation, agrees with its importance and upholds it very well.

I hope that continues.



posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Whereismypassword


your numerous campaigns about hate speech being free speech?


Hate speech in and of itself is generally protected speech/expression, unless it's a threat, directly incites violence, or in some cases if the expression is meant to directly intimidate.

Otherwise, I agree with you.


Only in the US is it generally protected. The rest of the west has fallen into censorship.


Luckily, we have have the First Amendment. Thankfully, the SCOTUS, regardless of individual justices' political affiliation, agrees with its importance and upholds it very well.

I hope that continues.


I hope it does too. The problem, however, lies not whether the government protects it, but if the people do as well. Even Orwell noted that governments are, on the whole, more protective of free speech than the populace. As the foundation of freedom and human rights, that does not bode well for freedom in general.



posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I hope it does too. The problem, however, lies not whether the government protects it, but if the people do as well. Even Orwell noted that governments are, on the whole, more protective of free speech than the populace. As the foundation of freedom and human rights, that does not bode well for freedom in general.


If the SCOUS begins deciding First Amendment cases based on public opinion, that is a problem. As far as lawmaking, public opinion matters, either insofar as those elected want to remain in office (whether by following public opinion or not, even if public opinion is constitutionally wrong), or the government feeling a loss of control by denying the will of the people.

But no, the people should not aid in the dissolution of their most sacred institutions, even if many are ignorant and/or misled.



edit on 5-1-2018 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I hope it does too. The problem, however, lies not whether the government protects it, but if the people do as well. Even Orwell noted that governments are, on the whole, more protective of free speech than the populace. As the foundation of freedom and human rights, that does not bode well for freedom in general.


If the SCOUS begins deciding First Amendment cases based on public opinion, that is a problem. As far as lawmaking, public opinion matters, either insofar as those elected want to remain in office (whether by following public opinion or not, even if public opinion is constitutionally wrong), or the government feeling a loss of control by denying the will of the people.

But no, the people should not aid in the dissolution of their most sacred institutions, even if many are ignorant and/or misled.


I'm glad you're on the side of free speech. Very few people have the balls these days.

At the Boston Free speech rally after the infamous Charlottesville fracas, upwards of 15,000 protesters menacingly surrounded a small group of about 50 people trying to hold a free speech rally. Besides the threat from an unruly mob, city officials ended up denying freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, and ultimately the freedom of speech for the sake of public relations. That's the perfect analogy of the state of free speech today.



posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I hope it does too. The problem, however, lies not whether the government protects it, but if the people do as well. Even Orwell noted that governments are, on the whole, more protective of free speech than the populace. As the foundation of freedom and human rights, that does not bode well for freedom in general.


If the SCOUS begins deciding First Amendment cases based on public opinion, that is a problem. As far as lawmaking, public opinion matters, either insofar as those elected want to remain in office (whether by following public opinion or not, even if public opinion is constitutionally wrong), or the government feeling a loss of control by denying the will of the people.

But no, the people should not aid in the dissolution of their most sacred institutions, even if many are ignorant and/or misled.


I'm glad you're on the side of free speech. Very few people have the balls these days.

At the Boston Free speech rally after the infamous Charlottesville fracas, upwards of 15,000 protesters menacingly surrounded a small group of about 50 people trying to hold a free speech rally. Besides the threat from an unruly mob, city officials ended up denying freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, and ultimately the freedom of speech for the sake of public relations. That's the perfect analogy of the state of free speech today.


I've always been on the side of free speech/expression. That also includes counter speech against what one finds objectionable. What you do not have the right to do is forcibly deny or prevent the right to speech, even though public opinion might influence a decision by a city council, or say...a public university. I see what you're getting at.

We've had this conversation before.



posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence




I've always been on the side of free speech/expression. That also includes counter speech against what one finds objectionable. What you do not have the right to do is forcibly deny or prevent the right to speech, even though public opinion might influence a decision by a city council, or say...a public university. I see what you're getting at.

We've had this conversation before.


I'm a forgetful guy, sorry. I may get repetitive.

Counter speech is indeed free speech, but when protest is used to censor another, it isn't. For instance, Frederick Douglass' plea for Free Speech" is a prime example of why.



posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

This is a public service announcement

Do not reply to this post, this is the mud-pit!



but their sensationalism, rumourmongering, and fanaticism will be duly noted.


My thoughts exactly, roughly a year ago. I'd suggest to author a little "can we have ATS back" piece next!

#MockeryAintSchadenfreude
edit on 5-1-2018 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Liquesence




I've always been on the side of free speech/expression. That also includes counter speech against what one finds objectionable. What you do not have the right to do is forcibly deny or prevent the right to speech, even though public opinion might influence a decision by a city council, or say...a public university. I see what you're getting at.

We've had this conversation before.


I'm a forgetful guy, sorry. I may get repetitive.

Counter speech is indeed free speech, but when protest is used to censor another, it isn't. For instance, Frederick Douglass' plea for Free Speech" is a prime example of why.


Protest itself does not censor speech.

I'm familiar with your other thread, the Fair-Weather Friends.



posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Liquesence




I've always been on the side of free speech/expression. That also includes counter speech against what one finds objectionable. What you do not have the right to do is forcibly deny or prevent the right to speech, even though public opinion might influence a decision by a city council, or say...a public university. I see what you're getting at.

We've had this conversation before.


I'm a forgetful guy, sorry. I may get repetitive.

Counter speech is indeed free speech, but when protest is used to censor another, it isn't. For instance, Frederick Douglass' plea for Free Speech" is a prime example of why.


Protest itself does not censor speech.

I'm familiar with your other thread, the Fair-Weather Friends.


True, but protest can censor free speech, as per the examples I’ve given.



posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Liquesence




I've always been on the side of free speech/expression. That also includes counter speech against what one finds objectionable. What you do not have the right to do is forcibly deny or prevent the right to speech, even though public opinion might influence a decision by a city council, or say...a public university. I see what you're getting at.

We've had this conversation before.


I'm a forgetful guy, sorry. I may get repetitive.

Counter speech is indeed free speech, but when protest is used to censor another, it isn't. For instance, Frederick Douglass' plea for Free Speech" is a prime example of why.


Protest itself does not censor speech.

I'm familiar with your other thread, the Fair-Weather Friends.


True, but protest can censor free speech, as per the examples I’ve given.


No, protests can't censor speech, because the right to public speech remains.

Hence the First Amendment and the right to protest.



posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Liquesence




I've always been on the side of free speech/expression. That also includes counter speech against what one finds objectionable. What you do not have the right to do is forcibly deny or prevent the right to speech, even though public opinion might influence a decision by a city council, or say...a public university. I see what you're getting at.

We've had this conversation before.


I'm a forgetful guy, sorry. I may get repetitive.

Counter speech is indeed free speech, but when protest is used to censor another, it isn't. For instance, Frederick Douglass' plea for Free Speech" is a prime example of why.


Protest itself does not censor speech.

I'm familiar with your other thread, the Fair-Weather Friends.


True, but protest can censor free speech, as per the examples I’ve given.


No, protests can't censor speech, because the right to public speech remains.

Hence the First Amendment and the right to protest.


The problem is, anything can be called a protest nowadays. The people who shouted down Frederick Douglass were protesting. Hence one of the greatest defences of free speech ever written.

In fact, there is no such right to protest in the first amendment.



posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The First Amendment grants the right to peaceable assembly. That includes (nonviolent) protest, which is a right of free expression (speech).

"Shouting down" a speaker, is not censorship because his right to speak still remains, even if not heard, unless prevented (censored) by the government. Again, I am familiar with your other thread.
edit on 5-1-2018 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence




Again, I am familiar with your other thread.


Kinda funny that such an encounter with dirty peasants should be of concern for our fine palace intrigue, innit?

*sips champagne*



posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The First Amendment grants the right to peaceable assembly. That includes (nonviolent) protest, which is a right of free expression (speech).

"Shouting down" a speaker, is not censorship because his right to speak still remains, even if not heard, unless prevented (censored) by the government. Again, I am familiar with your other thread.


Again, to refer to Douglass, it denies others the right to hear it.

To shout someone down is censorship. To deny others the right to hear it is censorship. Free speech is simply to let people speak.
edit on 5-1-2018 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

It’s a heavy topic. Frankly I don’t think we can get rid of tribalism, but maybe over time discredit it enough as a valid framework for thinking.


It's not that its even something that could or even should be 'eradicated', its just that its the key source of our species being lead over the cliff. All of our human nature is used against us by our masters, but the tribalism is the most profound of all that 'boggeyman stuff' inside us.

And in the modern era we've never been so off the hook into unbound tribalism. Individuality is on the outs.

Not that individuality is without its own problems when run amok.

But the balance is currently abysmal.

Hmm.. what comes between, besides group and individuality???

Anyways, people being deliberately ignorant to their own nature is specifically how they're best manipulated with it.
edit on 5-1-2018 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Censorship is preventing speech from happening, via government.

Someone having a louder voice is not censorship, for the right to speak still remains.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join