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.
originally posted by: BomSquad
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
It all comes down to that often mis-attributed quote, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
When you silence someone we are all diminished. Sometimes things that are unpopular need to be spoken.
Sometimes this is to provoke thought.
Sometimes this is to reveal how despicable the speaker is.
No matter what the speaker is saying, you will learn something. Sometimes you learn the speaker is an idiot and sometimes they are brilliant, but you gain nothing from imposing silence on them.
originally posted by: BomSquad
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
It all comes down to that often mis-attributed quote, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
When you silence someone we are all diminished. Sometimes things that are unpopular need to be spoken.
Sometimes this is to provoke thought.
Sometimes this is to reveal how despicable the speaker is.
No matter what the speaker is saying, you will learn something. Sometimes you learn the speaker is an idiot and sometimes they are brilliant, but you gain nothing from imposing silence on them.
There is another phrase that I've always loved. "It is better to remain silent and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"
originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: LesMisanthropeCan a right to deny others their rights exist as a right?
If I deny a pedophile the right to speak to children or associate with them, am I denying them their rights or protecting the rights of children?
If I deny the KKK the right to speak at an event, am I denying them their rights or protecting the rights of non-Whites in attendance to not be defamed or threatened?
I get your point, but it's a much more complex issue than just who has what rights. Whenever protecting someones human rights, denies others their own human rights, the lines get blurred and rightly so.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: jimmyx
Those regimes engaged in brutal censorship of dissenting views.Without allowing dissenting views, an orthodoxy grows.
Are you saying in fact that you put zero limits on speech, no matter the speaker or the intended audience or target of the speech?
Do the targets of hate groups for instance, groups like the neo-Nazi's or the KKK, have the right to feel secure and safe in public locations? If the KKK is in a park promoting their hate, it does not in any way deny those who are not White their right to feel safe in the park?
well of course...but in the beginning you have to have a large enough group of people that buy into it, before a "threat" to freedoms can be carried out without repercussions....as those repercussions fail to materialize, it emboldens and strengthens the leader of these cults, and the first thing to go IS dissent...man's history is littered with cultish groups, as well as the hundreds of millions of deaths of "believers" that have inhabited them.
This has far too many degrees of nuance to be black or white. A free-for-all approach leaves nearly all disgruntled at the end, aside from the truly sadistic (think of it as the FS equivalent of gorging) The aim should be for an amicable balance between all (the equivalent of moderation)
originally posted by: Blaine91555
I get your point, but it's a much more complex issue than just who has what rights. Whenever protecting someones human rights, denies others their own human rights, the lines get blurred and rightly so.