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
Id like to be in the court room when you tried to explain to a judge the first amendment means people have the right to be heard.
I might actually watch your YouTube channel if you tried to explain to your viewers that the first amendment means you’re not allowed to be heard .
originally posted by: Fallingdown
If that’s not your position .
What is your position ?
Is this your position ?
“So your position is if you break a law in the process of expressing yourself or giving your opinion ?
Your position/opinion/ expression shouldn’t be acknowledged “.
The answer is NOOOOOOO!!!!!!! That is not what I am saying.
I am saying that any person can decide for whatever reason they want to not acknowledge another persons opinion
There is no first amendment right to be heard.
I am not saying "All people who break the law should not be heard from"
I am saying even if a person would think that, they have that right, and are not violating anyones first amendment right.
Hoyt's actions are just as unjustified as someone snatching a MAGA cap.
originally posted by: redmage
originally posted by: Fallingdown
If that’s not your position .
What is your position ?
Regarding what? Hoyt? He's a confused vandal whose illegal actions are unjustifiable.
Is this your position ?
“So your position is if you break a law in the process of expressing yourself or giving your opinion ?
Your position/opinion/ expression shouldn’t be acknowledged “.
Nope, that's not a quote of mine.
originally posted by: Fallingdown
^^^^^^ see what I mean gambler .
Doesn’t care in the least her only concern was that she’s been triggered .
What is a legitimate protest?
The president was there. It comes with the territory. And, the right to do it.
originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Grambler
I said he had the right to be heard
originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Grambler
I said he had the right to be heard I didn’t say people had to listen .
I quit reading on your first sentence .
Because I’m sure the rest was more of the same .
No one has "the right to be heard". By definition, being heard requires other people listening, and no one should be forced to listen to anyone.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: redmage
No one has "the right to be heard". By definition, being heard requires other people listening, and no one should be forced to listen to anyone.
Absolutely correct.
So why are these protestors allowed to force people to listen to them by 'ambushing' them in a non-political sporting event where leaving means abandoning a very expensive ticket? Some of those tickets were a few thousand dollars a seat.
TheRedneck