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.

 

The First Amendment is Not Enough

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Plotus
The amount of citizens that will not put up with the censorship is evidenced by the amount of people who voted for President Trump.


Could you please share with us how you've personally been the victim of censorship? Thanks.




posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




Authoritarian chiming in.

Unlimited free speech is a utopian pipe dream and completely unobtainable. The Founding Fathers had it correct with the First Amendment.


It's just called free speech. "Unlimited free speech" is an authoritarian misrepresentation.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey


edit on 5-4-2018 by SlapMonkey because: I promised my wife that I would quit debating with undebatable people


She was probably just tired of you debating with her all the time, wasn't she?


All in all, a reasonable response.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Believe it or not, I've never said that right-wing or conservative views are being censored. It is my understanding that most of the banning is algorithm-based, though I could be wrong.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 03:44 PM
link   
The 1st amendment prevents government from censoring views the government doesn't agree with. That's the furthest it needs to go.

You wan't to have the right to go town town and rant about how great the Dallas Cowboys are? Fine, you have that right. I have the same right - I can stand next to you and and rant about how terrible they are. No one's rights have been infringed upon. You'd better rant louder.

Most people I see complaining about 'free speech' are actually complaining about the consequences of something that was said.

For example: You wan't to preach hate and bigotry? Fine - the government will not infringe, but don't complain about being censored when those that believe your opining is garbage let you know - by utilizing their free speech.

Don't complain when you're employer let's you go - you're not being censored - you're dealing with the consequences of something you've said.

Don't want /can't deal with the consequences? Keep your damned mouth shut.
edit on 5-4-2018 by AScrubWhoDied because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

I figured that you'd be proud of me




posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
It's just called free speech. "Unlimited free speech" is an authoritarian misrepresentation.


Call it a banana cream pie, the Founders still had it right in the Constitution.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So you believe it's authoritarian to have any limitations on speech? What about libel, slander, obscenity, sharing classified information or trade secrets, violating the privacy of others, inciting panic, etc?

Clearly there are numerous examples of speech violating the rights of or causing harm to others. Is it really authoritarian to have legal protection/recourse for the aggrieved?

Or what about those who just want to preserve a certain decorum on their private property? If I own a restaurant and I don't want some person standing in the middle of it advocating for beastiality, would it be authoritarian for me to kick him out?



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: AScrubWhoDied



For example: You wan't to preach hate and bigotry? Fine - the government will not infringe, but don't complain about being censored when those that believe you're opining is garbage let you know - by utilizing their free speech.

Don't complain when you're employer let's you go - you're not being censored - you're dealing with the consequences of something you've said.

Don't want /can't deal with the consequences? Keep your damned mouth shut.



I'd love for you to speak that sort of nonsense the next time the employees of a magazine are shot to death, or a blogger is beaten to death for speaking unorthodox views. Can't deal with those consequences? Should have kept their mouths shut.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Isn't the public choosing to censor actually an expression of freedom, though?
If communities are shaped by public opinion on what is acceptable and what is not, is that not a good thing?

Let's say a restaurant decides to put a sign up that says no gays... is it better for the people in society to shun that restaurant and put it out of business or for the govt to step in? I would say the former. If social media sites like facebook decide to ban conservatives, is it better to regulate them via govt. or let the people weigh in and decide whether to shun it's service? I'd say the latter.

Where we have a problem, I believe, is that Govt's seem to step in on behalf of one group and not the other. Again. govt. involvement is the problem.

If anyone is going to choose what is right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable when it comes to freedom of speech and expression it should be the people in my view.

edit on 5/4/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I have explained why it is the wrong word before--you refused to listen.

Nice addition of ad hominems, too. You really showed me.

You get a star for proving my point.

Bye.

 



originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

I'd love for you to speak that sort of nonsense the next time the employees of a magazine are shot to death, or a blogger is beaten to death for speaking unorthodox views. Can't deal with those consequences? Should have kept their mouths shut.

This, right here, is why you are undebatable. Someone comments to you, citing perfectly legal examples of the consequences of believing in the fallacy of unfettered free speech, and you react with emotional dribble. You are talking about illegal consequences to prove an emotional point, when the speaker was speaking about responding with free speech or getting fired--two perfectly acceptable consequences in our society.

Look, if you don't want to debate anyone intelligently, then don't start a thread or plea for people to have an intelligent discussion--it's the antithesis of debate. Why you are unwilling or incapable of seeing how you act on this issue is--well, amazing, to be honest.

Bye again--final answer.
edit on 5-4-2018 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

www.youtube.com...

Clever ....... no.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian




So you believe it's authoritarian to have any limitations on speech? What about libel, slander, obscenity, sharing classified information or trade secrets, violating the privacy of others, inciting panic, etc?


No I believe it is authoritarian to favor or enforce "strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom".

I believe the limits of what one says should be a personal choice.

According to simple physics, speech is incapable of causing harm. It's hgih time we figure out what does, and rectify that.




Or what about those who just want to preserve a certain decorum on their private property? If I own a restaurant and I don't want some person standing in the middle of it advocating for beastiality, would it be authoritarian for me to kick him out?


It would be censorship. And yes it is your choice to censor someone or not. Whether that is right or wrong is your problem.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Looks like you're trying to build a case on extreme outliers.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey



I have explained why it is the wrong word before--you refused to listen.

Nice addition of ad hominems, too. You really showed me.

You get a star for proving my point.

Bye.


One of these days you'll stand by your principles, but in this case, you cannot even stand by what you claim one post ago.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Soooo... ATS has no right to censor the posts on its website? I mean, I agree with you in principle, but in practice it becomes a bit hard. I don't allow my children to swear in my house. Is that really censorship? The line is fine. We should all be free to express ourselves. So I dunno. I'm an Anarchist, but I am still a practical man. Some rules exist for a reason, I suppose.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: AScrubWhoDied




Looks like you're trying to build a case on extreme outliers.


It looked like you are making excuses for censorship.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Just try using a few choice words right here, you will find the limits of what is allowable. Censorship was envisioned to silence the opposition, our Fore Fathers knew there had to be safeguards, hence the first amendment. Whether or not you are a victim of censorship, you never the less need to guard against it's use.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Plotus
Just try using a few choice words right here, you will find the limits of what is allowable.


But that's wrong!!!!!

I should be able to call anyone I want a maternal parental unit fornicator without them having an issue.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Unfortunately for that supposition Heff says no.... There is a limit in the private sector.




top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join