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: Fallingdown
a reply to: Grambler
I agree 100% destroying someone else’s property is wrong .
Now what about the statement he was trying to make. Does destroying someone else’s property automatically make that statement null and void ?
originally posted by: TheLieWeLive
Seriously, he shouldn’t have laid a finger on the balloon. It’s not his property,
it’s like slapping a MAGA hat off of someone,
it’s childish behavior.
Would you then say sure it was bad, but what about their message?
originally posted by: Fallingdown
I can understand why some people are fighting my position. But for the life of me I can’t understand why the intelligent people are ?
No not listening to the message of someone destroying public property in no way violates their first amendment rights.
You cite the Boston tea party and hong kong. That was all people breaking the law or destorying government property, not sopme private guys stuff.
Had the boston tea party decided to just destroy one guys property who supported the king, it would have been not only not impactful, but would have made them jerks who were petty
At this point in the argument people try to make a difference between breaking the law with violence or breaking the law passively . It doesn’t matter laws are made to keep us in check and anytime any law is broken it pisses someone off .
Meanwhile you have justified everything antifa stands for; we must listen to their message as they use violence and property destruction to censor people they dont like, or we are violating their first amendment.
I can understand why some people are fighting my position. But for the life of me I can’t understand why the intelligent people are ?
I think everyone’s position is shallow and self-serving to make theirself feel like A righteous intellectual
originally posted by: Fallingdown
Despite the actions anyone takes everyone deserves to be heard. If you don’t hear them how can you make a judgment on them. Their actions don’t need to be approved of just listened to . That’s what the first amendment is all about .
Has anyone on this thread suggested Hoyt no longer has the right to free speech?
originally posted by: Fallingdown
Does that mean he forfeited his first amendment rights ?
I say no that’s my entire position.
originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Grambler
Has anyone on this thread suggested Hoyt no longer has the right to free speech?
Yes every time I brought that position up people said I was wrong .
They dissected my view it’s a criminal act, it’s violent not non-violent it is against a person not a country, he’s no better than her ANTIFA.... etc
Just about everybody danced around on the head of a pin to avoid saying he still had a right to be heard .
I’m expecting someone I just replied to to before you do the exact same thing .
originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: vonclod
Does he have the right to be heard yes or no ?
originally posted by: Fallingdown
Does he have the right to be heard yes or no ?