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: 9
25
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 04:37 AM
link   
As an Entrepreneur and also like others here, copy write owner, believe in freedom and the human/humane right to speak freely. ( The kind that doesn't damage another human being, Or degrade them in any way) that's just classless and low life income created on the suffering of others, which i'm against 110%.

When it comes to speaking to free others from their mind shackles, totally agree with that freedom of speech.
edit on 18-4-2018 by BotheLumberJack because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Exactly!!!

With out freedom of speech, say good bye to the right to remain silent as well...which is a very...VERY GOOD right to have if one know how to handle it.

Without the right to remain silent, it will the good old barbaric days where one has to confess their sins and profess their love of the vagina(which was still somehow male dominated, surprisingly), and not the penis...Satan.


edit on 18-4-2018 by Specimen because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-4-2018 by Specimen because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-4-2018 by Specimen because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 09:38 AM
link   


copy write owner


Hmmm.

Isn't the term copyright.



posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

Not when you're a copycat writer spilling some beanz. The term Freudian Slips applies here as well, Gravelnazi.



#FreeSlips



posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Copyrights are not just about laying claim to thoughts or the use of language. It also allows people to retain rights to their work. One cannot steal someone else's personal property for the sake of profit and claim freedom of speech in their defense.

Their right ended where someone else's began and protecting those rights is not an act of censorship.


Not having your work plagiarized or used in manners you do not agree with is not a human right. It is against the law, sure.

If someone arranges words in a certain combination, it does not follow that it is now his personal property.



posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

Well, yes, copying someone's work and selling it as if it was your own is conduct I do not agree with. My contention is that censorship is not the best response.



posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



Not having your work plagiarized or used in manners you do not agree with is not a human right.


I never claimed it was a "human" right. But the right to private property is a right nonetheless.

Protecting that right and protecting your property, in whatever form it may be, is not censorship of freedom of speech.

Again, your right ends where the rights of other's begin.



If someone arranges words in a certain combination, it does not follow that it is now his personal property.


Incorrect. If I write a book or a song, perhaps a poem, that is my property. You do not get to steal my property and profit off of it in the name of freedom of speech.

Protecting my right to my property is not equal to censorship.



posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert



I never claimed it was a "human" right. But the right to private property is a right nonetheless.

Protecting that right and protecting your property, in whatever form it may be, is not censorship of freedom of speech.

Again, your right ends where the rights of other's begin.


Private property is indeed a human right. But language, certain combinations of words, etc. is not private property.


Incorrect. If I write a book or a song, perhaps a poem, that is my property. You do not get to steal my property and profit off of it in the name of freedom of speech.

Protecting my right to my property is not equal to censorship.


Sorry, but no. One cannot own certain combinations of words. Language is not your property, nor anyone else's.



posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



Private property is indeed a human right. But language, certain combinations of words, etc. is not private property.




Sorry, but no. One cannot own certain combinations of words. Language is not your property, nor anyone else's.


I disagree and so would the founders that penned one of the greatest combination of words, the Constitution of the United States.


To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;


Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution.

Plain and simple, we have a right, human or otherwise, to protection of our personal properties, creations, arts, etc, and the protection of those rights is not an act of censorship.

It is not only completely constitutional, but right and ethical to do so.



posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I agree that the US Constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written. But your founders were often slave owners, believed blacks weren't fully human, and criminalized making false statements that were critical of the federal government, all of which are unconstitutional. Even they were unable to abide by their own principles.

It is right and ethical to refuse to steal another's work and pass it off as your own. However, it is in my opinion unethical and wrong to claim certain combinations of words as private property, and to deny access and use of the same combinations of words to others.

Either way, I'm here to discuss free speech and censorship, not laws.
edit on 18-4-2018 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



I agree that the US Constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written. But your founders were often slave owners, believed blacks weren't fully human, and criminalized making false statements that were critical of the federal government, all of which are unconstitutional. Even they were unable to abide by their own principles.


I'm not sure how ad homs attacks against the founding fathers negates the fact that we have a right to our property. A right you agree with.



However, it is in my opinion unethical and wrong to claim certain combinations of words as private property, and to deny access and use of the same combinations of words to others.


It is about more than just words. It is also about exercising one's right to freedom of speech through many other avenues, which one has every right to claim as their own. Protecting that right to personal property is not an act of censorship.



Either way, I'm here to discuss free speech and censorship, not laws.


You seem to be here to bottleneck the discussion down to the only aspect you have any leg left to stand on, but not a stable leg whatsoever.

Words.

But free speech comes in many forms and those forms can be protected through constitutional rights. It would appear that the best argument you have against that is "because they owned slaves". Which is highly-illogical.

Also, holding one accountable for their use of someone else's property is not censoring. No one is stopping them from doing so. They just have to pay the consequences.

So to recap, you believe in constitutional rights, except the ones you disagree with. You believe in personal property, except for property that may have been created through the exercising of freedom of speech and it is more than acceptable for someone to use that property for whatever personal benefit without consequence or consideration of the rights of others.

It would appear that you are exactly what you claim to hate in the OP. Your approach is unprincipled and individual liberties are, in fact, relative.



posted on Apr, 19 2018 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



Either way, I'm here to discuss free speech and censorship, not laws.


I see you're still beating that poor dead horse!!

So do you believe there's a diffrence between restriction and censorship?



posted on Apr, 19 2018 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




You seem to be here to bottleneck the discussion down to the only aspect you have any leg left to stand on, but not a stable leg whatsoever.

Words.


Yes, the clear distinction between words and actions puts the censor's conflation of the two into immediate doubt and suspicion.


But free speech comes in many forms and those forms can be protected through constitutional rights. It would appear that the best argument you have against that is "because they owned slaves". Which is highly-illogical.


I was merely showing your appeal to authority was baseless. You shouldn't agree with something simply because the founding fathers agreed with it, or because it was in the constitution.


Also, holding one accountable for their use of someone else's property is not censoring. No one is stopping them from doing so. They just have to pay the consequences.


No one stopped the folks at Charlie Hebdo. They just had to pay the consequences. In truth, threat of punishment or coercion is a form of censorship insofar as it has a chilling effect on the free exercise of civil liberties.


So to recap, you believe in constitutional rights, except the ones you disagree with. You believe in personal property, except for property that may have been created through the exercising of freedom of speech and it is more than acceptable for someone to use that property for whatever personal benefit without consequence or consideration of the rights of others.

It would appear that you are exactly what you claim to hate in the OP. Your approach is unprincipled and individual liberties are, in fact, relative.


Your portrayal of my beliefs, even though I stated them explicitly, are false. There are a few options why that might be the case, ie. ignorance, misunderstanding, or dishonesty, but since you have claimed in the past to value honesty, even though I highly doubt it, I'll chalk it up to a misunderstanding.

Regarding the false portrayal of my beliefs, here's what I truly believe. I do not believe in constitutional rights as such (my country's constitution, for instance, says we have freedom of speech on the one hand, but also claims that it can be reasonably censored on the other); I believe principles, which precede laws, as I've clearly stated. I believe in personal property, but I do not believe certain combinations of words can be called personal property, as I also explicitly stated.

What I hate is the weasel-like, dishonest, and authoritarian impulses of those who defend censorship.
edit on 19-4-2018 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2018 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Kurokage




I see you're still beating that poor dead horse!!


Yes, at this point I feel like I'm Cassandra.



So do you believe there's a diffrence between restriction and censorship?


No.



posted on Apr, 19 2018 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



Yes, the clear distinction between words and actions puts the censor's conflation of the two into immediate doubt and suspicion.


Free speech is not limited to just words and it is in that simple reality that your assertions fail.



I was merely showing your appeal to authority was baseless. You shouldn't agree with something simply because the founding fathers agreed with it, or because it was in the constitution.


The constitution, at least in this country, is where our rights are derived and from which our laws are informed. I agree with it because it is the ethical and just position to take.

But yes, it does appear that I used an appeal to authority, though my intent was not to do so.



Your portrayal of my beliefs, even though I stated them explicitly, are false. There are a few options why that might be the case, ie. ignorance, misunderstanding, or dishonesty, but since you have claimed in the past to value honesty, even though I highly doubt it, I'll chalk it up to a misunderstanding.


Your words betray you.



do not believe in constitutional rights as such (my country's constitution, for instance, says we have freedom of speech on the one hand, but also claims that it can be reasonably censored on the other); I believe principles, which precede laws, as I've clearly stated. I believe in personal property, but I do not believe certain combinations of words can be called personal property, as I also explicitly stated.


Then you do not believe in personal property rights or free speech. You believe a very limited version of free speech, according to your own philosophical views. As is often the case, you appear to believe in things that sounds good on the surface, if we are to hear those words in a philosophical bubble, but are not applicable in the real world.

But that is why we have rights. While it is your right to express what your opinion is, your opinion does not negate my right to the fruit of my labor, whether it is created with wood or words.



What I hate is the weasel-like, dishonest, and authoritarian impulses of those who defend censorship.


What is dishonest is to label those that would stand for personal property rights as censors.



posted on Apr, 19 2018 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert


Free speech is not limited to just words and it is in that simple reality that your assertions fail.


I never said it was, and that is why your refutation fails.


The constitution, at least in this country, is where our rights are derived and from which our laws are informed. I agree with it because it is the ethical and just position to take.


How do you know the laws are just and ethical?


Then you do not believe in personal property rights or free speech. You believe a very limited version of free speech, according to your own philosophical views. As is often the case, you appear to believe in things that sounds good on the surface, if we are to hear those words in a philosophical bubble, but are not applicable in the real world.


Sure I do, I believe in personal property and free speech, even despite your unproven allegations.



posted on Apr, 19 2018 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



I never said it was, and that is why your refutation fails.


You are saying people have no right to the product of a combination of words, but also admit that free speech is about more than just words. Free speech can come in many forms and many of those forms can be considered private property. You are saying people have no right to that product, even though it is rightfully theirs and you assert protecting those private property rights is censorship.



How do you know the laws are just and ethical?


Because it not only protects the individual's right to free speech, but it also protects their right to claim what is rightfully theirs.

It appears your position disagrees with that.



Sure I do, I believe in personal property and free speech, even despite your unproven allegations.


You've proven it with your own words. Here it is again:



I believe in personal property, but I do not believe certain combinations of words can be called personal property, as I also explicitly stated.


So you claim to be for free speech and personal property rights, but not when one was created or facilitated by the other.

Not only is your approach relative, depending on the situation in which the "property" was created", it also has no real world application. People have a right to their work, even if it was created through the expression of free speech.

As I said, your position only stands-up in a bubble, separated from reality.
edit on 19-4-2018 by introvert because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-4-2018 by introvert because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-4-2018 by introvert because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-4-2018 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2018 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




You are saying people have no right to the product of a combination of words, but also admit that free speech is about more than just words. Free speech can come in many forms and many of those forms can be considered private property. You are saying people have no right to that product, even though it is rightfully theirs and you assert protecting those private property rights is censorship.


If that's what you believe, why don't you at least ask for my permission to use my personal property before quoting me? It is rightfully mine, after all.


You've proven it with your own words. Here it is again:

I believe in personal property, but I do not believe certain combinations of words can be called personal property, as I also explicitly stated.


That statement only proves that I believe in personal property, and that I do not believe certain combinations of words can be called personal property. So again, I respectfully ask that you refrain from using my personal property to formulate your straw men.



posted on Apr, 19 2018 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



If that's what you believe, why don't you at least ask for my permission to use my personal property before quoting me? It is rightfully mine, after all.


No, it is not your property. By agreeing to the terms and conditions of this site, it is the property of The Above Network.



That statement only proves that I believe in personal property, and that I do not believe certain combinations of words can be called personal property. So again, I respectfully ask that you refrain from using my personal property to formulate your straw men.


You do not own the words you create on this site, as you gave up that right, knowingly, and it does not appear that you do believe in personal property rights. If I create something from the act of exercising my free speech, you do not believe I have any right to it. Whether it be art, music, a book..whatever.

If you did believe I have a right to the fruit of my labor/time, you would be a censor, according to your own definitions.



posted on Apr, 19 2018 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




No, it is not your property. By agreeing to the terms and conditions of this site, it is the property of The Above Network.


I'll take your word for it. I suppose then you can no longer say "no, it is not your property" because according to you, that phrase is Above Network's property.




You do not own the words you create on this site, as you gave up that right, knowingly, and it does not appear that you do believe in personal property rights. If I create something from the act of exercising my free speech, you do not believe I have any right to it. Whether it be art, music, a book..whatever.

If you did believe I have a right to the fruit of my labor/time, you would be a censor, according to your own definitions.


I was kidding, of course. As I've stated many times now, no one owns words, no matter where they are created. I just think your authoritarian stance on the subject is silly, and was mocking you.

No I do not believe you have any right to your words. In fact I've been quoting your so-called "property" at my leisure, and using it however I see fit. 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.

Speaking of property, aren't you a socialist?




top topics



 
25
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join