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: 7
25
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert




Ok, speech is free when you are talking to yourself.

As for it's application in the rest of our interactions, it is not.


Speech is also free when you are speaking to someone who believes in free speech. It isn't free when you talk to someone who believes in censorship.


Someone that believes in free speech would be in the same deluded position. There is no such thing as free speech.

Again, there is a cost to everything. You seem to be conflating censorship and an inability to take personal responsibility for the costs of your exercising of rights.




posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: nightbringr




And I'm asking you point blank. Do you agree with the censorship of that material? Stop dancing around the issue and show your true colors.


I do not agree with censorship of any material.


Some material needs to be "censored", as the individual right to freedom of speech does not supersede certain laws or the rights of others.



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Someone that believes in free speech would be in the same deluded position. There is no such thing as free speech.

Again, there is a cost to everything. You seem to be conflating censorship and an inability to take personal responsibility for the costs of your exercising of rights.


Repeating it doesn't make it any more true. As I stated many times already, freedom of speech exists until folks such as yourself seek to take it away.

Censorship is censorship. I'm not conflating it with anything else.



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Some material needs to be "censored", as the individual right to freedom of speech does not supersede certain laws or the rights of others.


Freedom of speech exists before your laws. Freedom of speech cannot supersede any other rights.



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: nightbringr




And there we have it.


And?

Thats sick dude



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: nightbringr




Thats sick dude


What's sick?

Show your true colors and make your accusations, or dance around like a coward.
edit on 17-4-2018 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



Repeating it doesn't make it any more true.


True. It should only need to be said once to be understood, but here we are.

You have the freedom of speech, but you do not have free speech. There is always a cost of some sort.



As I stated many times already, freedom of speech exists until folks such as yourself seek to take it away.


Exactly. The freedom of speech exists, but that does not mean it is free.

And I have not said I want to take that freedom away. Do not be dishonest and imply such a thing.



Censorship is censorship. I'm not conflating it with anything else.


Yes, you are conflating responsibility for one's actions with censorship. I've read similar arguments being made by those that feel entitled to being above personal responsibility.

You are accountable for the costs of your personal liberties. You cannot push those costs on to others. If you do, it's no longer an individual right.



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




True. It should only need to be said once to be understood, but here we are.

You have the freedom of speech, but you do not have free speech. There is always a cost of some sort.



A cost to speech? No, censorship is the product of superstition and fear, not free speech.




Exactly. The freedom of speech exists, but that does not mean it is free.

And I have not said I want to take that freedom away. Do not be dishonest and imply such a thing.


Because humans are born unshackled doesn't mean slaves are free either. That doesn't mean we should stop advocating for freedom or on their behalf.




Yes, you are conflating responsibility for one's actions with censorship. I've read similar arguments being made by those that feel entitled to being above personal responsibility.

You are accountable for the costs of your personal liberties. You cannot push those costs on to others. If you do, it's no longer an individual right.



Nowhere did anyone state that we should infringe on the rights of others.



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



Freedom of speech exists before your laws.


No, it does not. Freedom of speech, or any individual freedom, only exists within the law. You are not above it and cannot push responsibility for your usage of rights on to others.



Freedom of speech cannot supersede any other rights.


Exactly. That is why your right ends where other's begin. That is freedom and personal responsibility.

But you call it censorship.



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




No, it does not. Freedom of speech, or any individual freedom, only exists within the law. You are not above it and cannot push responsibility for your usage of rights on to others.


No, they exist before laws. To say otherwise is circular. The first amendment, for example, protects free speech from the government. It doesn't protect itself or other laws.




Exactly. That is why your right ends where other's begin. That is freedom and personal responsibility.

But you call it censorship.


That's not what I meant. I meant it is near impossible to infringe on another's rights with speech. The only case I could see otherwise is if someone was yelling or otherwise disrupting someone else's free speech with their speech.



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




No, it does not. Freedom of speech, or any individual freedom, only exists within the law. You are not above it and cannot push responsibility for your usage of rights on to others.


No, they exist before laws. To say otherwise is circular. The first amendment, for example, protects free speech from the government. It doesn't protect itself or other laws.




Exactly. That is why your right ends where other's begin. That is freedom and personal responsibility.

But you call it censorship.


That's not what I meant. I meant it is near impossible to infringe on another's rights with speech. The only case I could see otherwise is if someone was yelling or otherwise disrupting someone else's free speech with their speech.



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



A cost to speech? No, censorship is the product of superstition and fear, not free speech.


You seem to be making two separate arguments here.

To answer your question, yes there is a cost to having certain rights. You bear the costs of that responsibility. If you wish to push that on to others, you are infringing on their freedoms.

And I agree that censorship can be the product of what you describe, but do not confuse that with having to take responsibility for your actions.

Like I said, you have the freedom to say what you like, but that does not mean there are not costs associated with that freedom, depending on the situation, and having to bear those costs is not censorship.



Because humans are born unshackled doesn't mean slaves are free either. That doesn't mean we should stop advocating for freedom or on their behalf.


That's not a very good example to use.



Nowhere did anyone state that we should infringe on the rights of others.


You can use your "free" speech to do that very thing. In fact, it appears that you agree with such a thing, if I am reading earlier posts correctly.



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 03:31 PM
link   
This debate never ends and censorship never turns out the way the censors envisioned. Twenty five years ago Tipper Gore was on a censorship crusade with rock and rap in the crosshairs. Crude and "offensive" material was slapped with a warning sticker, which naturally caused sales of CD's labeled as such to skyrocket.


Tipper, what's that sticker sticking on my CD?
Is that some kind of warning to protect me?
Freedom of choice needs a stronger, stronger voice.
You can stamp out the source,
but you can't stop creative thoughts.
Ah, Tipper come on,
ain't you been getting it on?
Ask Ozzie, Zappa or me.
We'll show you what it's like to be free.
Ah, Tipper come on,
it's just a smoke screen for the real problems.
S&L deficit, the homeless, the environment.
Hey, hey all you senators wives.
Better take a good look at your own lives.
Before you go preaching to me.
You're definitions of obscenity.
Ah, Tipper come on, ain't you been getting it on?
Ask Ozzie, Zappa or me.
We'll show you what it's like to be free.
The irony it seems it seems to me it's un-American policy.
Yeah, we'e come so far
but still only to find people like you with ignorant minds.
Ah, Tipper come on,
ain't you been getting it on?
Ask Ozzie, Zappa or me.
We'll show you what it's like to be free.
Ah, Tipper come on,
it's just a smoke screen for the real problems.
S&L deficit, the homeless, the environment



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Like I said, you have the freedom to say what you like, but that does not mean there are not costs associated with that freedom, depending on the situation, and having to bear those costs is not censorship.


Would you mind providing an example of "costs associated with that freedom"?



That's not a very good example to use.


It's a perfect example.



You can use your "free" speech to do that very thing. In fact, it appears that you agree with such a thing, if I am reading earlier posts correctly.


No you cannot, because then you would be infringing on the rights of others. We'ren't you just arguing rights end where another's rights begin?



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: underpass61




This debate never ends and censorship never turns out the way the censors envisioned. Twenty five years ago Tipper Gore was on a censorship crusade with rock and rap in the crosshairs. Crude and "offensive" material was slapped with a warning sticker, which naturally caused sales of CD's labeled as such to skyrocket.


Frank Zappa was instrumental in that battle, even though he ultimately failed.



We've come a long way since then.



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



No, they exist before laws. To say otherwise is circular. The first amendment, for example, protects free speech from the government. It doesn't protect itself or other laws.


Without the constitution or the laws that protect our individual liberties, that "right" would not exist, except in theory. History shows that.



That's not what I meant. I meant it is near impossible to infringe on another's rights with speech. The only case I could see otherwise is if someone was yelling or otherwise disrupting someone else's free speech with their speech.


There are many ways one can infringe on the rights of others through speech. But I suppose that comes down to a matter of definitions.



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Without the constitution or the laws that protect our individual liberties, that "right" would not exist, except in theory. History shows that.


Rights afforded by governments and laws are not quite the same as the fundamental rights we are born with. "Right" is a dubious term, though.



There are many ways one can infringe on the rights of others through speech. But I suppose that comes down to a matter of definitions.


I wouldn't mind hearing one.



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: nightbringr




And I'm asking you point blank. Do you agree with the censorship of that material? Stop dancing around the issue and show your true colors.


I do not agree with censorship of any material.


Some material needs to be "censored", as the individual right to freedom of speech does not supersede certain laws or the rights of others.

Thats about the best way that could be stated, bravo.

I'd love to see the OP explain how the rights of a pervert are more important than the rights of an abused child?



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: nightbringr




Thats sick dude


What's sick?

Show your true colors and make your accusations, or dance around like a coward.
I've already made my accusations, but ill say it again.

You are sickening for believing the rights of a pedophile come before the rights of a child.

Introvert said it best above. The right of the pedophile ends when it infringes on the rights of another, in this case a victimized child. You sir, are quite simply disturbed for believing otherwise.



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: nightbringr




You are sickening for believing the rights of a pedophile come before the rights of a child.


I do not believe that, liar. Nor do I defend "those peoples rights to THAT disgusting material", liar. These specious lies are all you and many others have in your defence of censorship. You have to descend to depravity and guilt by association, accusing fellow posters of despicable beliefs and acts, all so you can try to win a losing argument.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join