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.

 

Free speech or Censorship

page: 10
25
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2018 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
One act of censorship is a thousandfold more pernicious than the entirety of all censored information combined. A bold claim, certainly, but I think it is true in both the short and the long term. To deny another the ability to impart information is to deny every subsequent individual, and indeed the rest of human history, the chance to receive it, learn from it, and make do with it what we will.

But men who cannot peer into the future will take it upon themselves to use their blindness as impetus to silence another. The censorship of Socrates, for instance, was intended to stop the corruption of Athenian youth. Whether that worked or not is uncertain, but their censorship stole from the rest of history a node of expression from which previously had come much wisdom, and all because some wealthy noblemen had a fearful hunch about the effects of his speech. Besides the obvious tyranny of executing a man for fear of what he might say and what the effect might be, we are certainly all the poorer due to the loss if this one mind. Whatever benefits there may have been for his censorship pale in comparison to the damage incurred by the loss of his voice.

This is true of all acts of censorship. Not one human being has come under death, injury or corruption because he happened to hear certain combinations of words and sentences deemed dangerous by some censor or bigot, yet the bodies of censored men and women litter the earth, their works stolen and destroyed because censors fear the opposite.

This same superstitious fear exists in all those who avoid the absolute adherence to free speech, opting instead for excuse-making and ways to wiggle, like a worm, out of defending it.

That’s why we should finally call out as liars those who say they believe in free speech so long as it comes with a litany of caveats and restrictions. The unprincipled, conditioned, relativistic approach to free speech often has little to do with free speech. It is all a ploy to disguise the fact that they would much rather restrict your freedoms than let you exercise them. Their arguments against the absolute, God-given, fundamental right to free speech is in one way or another an argument for censorship.

They are censors, and as censors is how they should be known.

LesMis

So you would include President Trump amongst the people to call out?

It appears in the Comey memos that he wanted to jail reporters in order to obtain sources.




posted on Apr, 20 2018 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
One act of censorship is a thousandfold more pernicious than the entirety of all censored information combined. A bold claim, certainly, but I think it is true in both the short and the long term. To deny another the ability to impart information is to deny every subsequent individual, and indeed the rest of human history, the chance to receive it, learn from it, and make do with it what we will.

But men who cannot peer into the future will take it upon themselves to use their blindness as impetus to silence another. The censorship of Socrates, for instance, was intended to stop the corruption of Athenian youth. Whether that worked or not is uncertain, but their censorship stole from the rest of history a node of expression from which previously had come much wisdom, and all because some wealthy noblemen had a fearful hunch about the effects of his speech. Besides the obvious tyranny of executing a man for fear of what he might say and what the effect might be, we are certainly all the poorer due to the loss if this one mind. Whatever benefits there may have been for his censorship pale in comparison to the damage incurred by the loss of his voice.

This is true of all acts of censorship. Not one human being has come under death, injury or corruption because he happened to hear certain combinations of words and sentences deemed dangerous by some censor or bigot, yet the bodies of censored men and women litter the earth, their works stolen and destroyed because censors fear the opposite.

This same superstitious fear exists in all those who avoid the absolute adherence to free speech, opting instead for excuse-making and ways to wiggle, like a worm, out of defending it.

That’s why we should finally call out as liars those who say they believe in free speech so long as it comes with a litany of caveats and restrictions. The unprincipled, conditioned, relativistic approach to free speech often has little to do with free speech. It is all a ploy to disguise the fact that they would much rather restrict your freedoms than let you exercise them. Their arguments against the absolute, God-given, fundamental right to free speech is in one way or another an argument for censorship.

They are censors, and as censors is how they should be known.

LesMis

So you would include President Trump amongst the people to call out?

It appears in the Comey memos that he wanted to jail reporters in order to obtain sources.


Pretty much everyone, actually. I can find very few declarations of free speech absolutism in history.



posted on Apr, 20 2018 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope




I would do that with your spoken word, your written word, and apparently whatever you relinquish to the Above Network. You, nor anyone else, owns them.


You should maybe read the T&Cs of the site, they take ownership of anything you create here. If you were to try and monetize anything created on the site without permission of the owner I think the laws you don't believe in would come crashing down on you? You will see that "magic" word in bold "copyright" by me. You know....the word you don't believe in.

A selection of ATS T&Cs


Use Of Content; Copyright. All content created by Users of TAN website are governed by an "Attribution - NonCommercial - NoDerivs 3.0 Unported" Creative Commons Deed (hereinafter "Creative Commons License"). Users can share, distribute, copy, and transmit the work Users find on TAN websites provided Users provide proper attribution that includes the name of the Website User, the name of the Website, and a link to the content thread. These usage rights do not apply to any commercial use of the content found on TAN websites, and such use is strictly prohibited without prior written authorization from TAN. These usage rights also do not apply to derivative works, and such use is strictly prohibited without prior written authorization from TAN. Each post of each thread contains a "copyright" link that clearly specifies the method in which the material may be shared, distributed, modified, or used.




You will not copy, distribute, display, or publicly perform material from the Websites to Post on other websites or quote in offline research in a manner that does not comply with the Creative Commons License that specifies the author's member name as a member of AboveTopSecret.com, includes The Above Network, LLC and the member as owners of the content, provides the title of the thread, and a full URL to the board thread.


You should also take a glance at section 15c, and 17 they may also contain that magic word copyright!!

So to clarify, words can be owned.




edit on 20-4-2018 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2018 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Kurokage




You should maybe read the T&Cs of the site, they take ownership of anything you create here. If you were to try and monetize anything created on the site without permission of the owner I think the laws you don't believe in would come crashing down on you? You will see that "magic" word in bold "copyright" by me. You know....the word you don't believe in.


Laws for copyright surely exist. Of course, I haven't argued otherwise, despite your silly strawmen.



So to clarify, words can be owned.



A non-sequitur. There is not even a strand of chewing gum connecting any of your premises to the conclusion.



posted on Apr, 20 2018 @ 01:52 PM
link   



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 09:41 AM
link   
So you will post links to back up your claims but refuse to read any links posted by others to back up theirs??? You've made several threads in different forums about the same thing and been shown that your narrow point of view about "free speech" in each thread leaves many unimpressed with your black or white point of view.




But language, certain combinations of words, etc. is not private property.




One cannot own certain combinations of words

This is what you said, yet this happens all the time when people trademark words.



new topics

 
25
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join