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.

 

What did Barack Obama say at his secret sports speech in front of hundreds of people?

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: chrismarco

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: TheJesuit

Can you show me where, in the 1st, it shows you’re allowed to tweet, record or livestream?

No?

Thought not.


well if they (sloan) is sayi g you cant tweet anything ***after*** without being kicked out than is this not a violation of free speech???

Once MIT becomes a government entity/agency it will then become a violation of free speech. Until then it's not.



(post by Allaroundyou removed for a manners violation)

posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: chrismarco
well if they (sloan) is sayi g you cant tweet anything ***after*** without being kicked out than is this not a violation of free speech???

No. As other members have pointed out, free speech only applies to government or government related people/organisations preventing people from communicating with other people.
Sloan is not part of the government and was not acting in the name of the government, it was acting as a private entity, and, as such, they can impose any conditions they like to the people attending their meetings.

In this case it looks like this was what was presented to the audience.



Edited to add that they were not forbidding people from having their phone on, unless they already had said that people had to have their phones off.
edit on 25/2/2018 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Obama is not president anymore, so it’s not a 1A issue

It does show a cult like following that no info was realesed



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Thank you for your post, I was looking for an NDA which is legally binding . This "Policy" on the other hand has punitive actions taken/threatened towards exercising an American's freedom of speech in the event of participation at a university hosted event, Private or not this ideology directly conflicts with what AMERICA stands for.

a reply to: ArMaP



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


When Trump pays some woman to keep her mouth shut about an affair, is that an infringement on free speech also, or did she agree not to speak? She got money, they got an invite.


What's the Problem? Oh, that's right, OBAMA!!!!



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJesuit
This is in no way a violation of the freedom of speech act. CMON people, you all sound like a bunch of children who had can’t stay up past 8p.m.



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
a reply to: TheJesuit

Barack Obama is not my most favorite person, but Sloan has every right to control those kinds of things on their private property. The First Amendment applies to government, not private businesses.

Now when Obama held speeches as President and used his SS/FBI security to prevent the public from recording him, that was a problem.

Wahttttt??????
Freedom of speech , in the US , covers all....
Just Damn



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 04:37 PM
link   
After Armap's post of the "policy'" it just turned into an ideological & Legal argument (Does that sit well with you as an American? A private entity can threaten you with punishment-subverting your right to free speech??) and a very dangerous precedent In the USA.

a reply to: Allaroundyou



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP


edit on 2/25/18 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/25/18 by Gothmog because: nvm . it was a setup


(post by Allaroundyou removed for a manners violation)

posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheJesuit
After Armap's post of the "policy'" it just turned into an ideological & Legal argument (Does that sit well with you as an American? A private entity can threaten you with punishment-subverting your right to free speech??) and a very dangerous precedent In the USA.

a reply to: Allaroundyou


That's not something new, it's been happening since the beginning of the US. A business/private entity has rights allowing them to censor speech in their place of business.

Not sure if they still do, but did you know about 20 years ago anyone that got a job at KFC signed a lifetime NDA that they wouldn't share the secret recipe, and if they ever did they would be liable for damages incurred?



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Would be normal if someone was no longer in the US and wanted to hide the fact....



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Yes, censoring information/speech through an NDA is fine you can read it and sign it, a policy on the other hand after publicly advertising the event then last minute to make its contents private is deceiving. Never mind the implications this has....




a reply to: Vector99



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99


That's not something new, it's been happening since the beginning of the US. A business/private entity has rights allowing them to censor speech in their place of business.


It's one thing to censor speech at a place of business or even what you say outside of that business if you're still an employee or representative of that business, but to limit someone from posting their opinions about your business or it's paid speakers as a paying customer or attendee AFTER THE EVENT IS OVER is excessive and wrong.


edit on 25-2-2018 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
a reply to: UKTruth


When Trump pays some woman to keep her mouth shut about an affair, is that an infringement on free speech also, or did she agree not to speak? She got money, they got an invite.



If the lady accepted the money, then its an agreement.. NOT an infringement.



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Dear Obama,

Please immediately refrain & discontinue your 8-year legacy of being Americas #1 hate-enabler, if you think that by setting up closed-door meetings designed to encourage kneeling and having the backs of your pre-trained 'youth' whose sole purpose is to resist all things Trump is going to somehow change things - you're even a bigger muppet than I ever thought possible.

Folks respect sportspeople because they are good at sports and lots and lots of folks love sports. Folks are also pretty quick to rip into bought-and-paid-for sportspeople who parrot CNNs talking points.

I'll be watching for rabid CNN diatribe proceeding from the mouths of sportspeople whose political opinions reflect Obamas/DNC/liberal agendas of controlling everyones physical and mental existence.



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Vector99


That's not something new, it's been happening since the beginning of the US. A business/private entity has rights allowing them to censor speech in their place of business.


It's one thing to censor speech at a place of business or even what you say outside of that business if you're still an employee or representative of that business, but to limit someone from posting their opinions about your business or it's paid speakers as a paying customer or attendee AFTER THE EVENT IS OVER is excessive and wrong.


The memo given to attendee's says nothing about not posting opinions, it says content. That means people can say they liked or hated his speech, they just can't say I liked/hated when Obama said "_____ ___ ____ ____ ___" because that would then contain content.



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

What's the point in posting an opinion about a speech if you can't discuss your opinion on the content of the speech? Stupid and WRONG! Especially since someone commented on the fact that it didn't amount to anything more than a high school graduation speech.


edit on 25-2-2018 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJesuit

They were warned of the conditions, they accepted them, like in a contract.

The people that said nothing about what was said by Obama were not being silenced, they accepted not to speak.







 
24
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join