It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
Authoritarian chiming in.
Unlimited free speech is a utopian pipe dream and completely unobtainable. The Founding Fathers had it correct with the First Amendment.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.