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.

 

We Have to Take Away your Freedom of Speech or We Won’t Be Free

page: 2
27
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

She's talking about her government, the government shutting down what she considers "extreme speech", and you are okay with that.

Madness.

Too many people support fascist authoritarians any more.

Madness.




posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Boadicea

She's talking about her government, the government shutting down what she considers "extreme speech", and you are okay with that.


No. And you know damn well you are misrepresenting my words. In other words, just making crap up now. Really? First Merkel and now me? Hmmm.... I'm seeing a pattern here.

I very clearly and explicitly stated -- quoting HER WORDS -- that she is NOT talking about government shutting down any speech. She may want to do so and may be thinking it, but she is NOT saying that.


Madness.


No. Just made up crap. But that's freedom of speech, eh?



posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: oloufo
a reply to: 727Sky

Blablablub. Typical right wing bs without substance. Never voted her partie but as a leader she is a thousend times better as this freak in the white house. By the way. What she means: we have to fight hate. Thats all and she is right.

One persons hate is another persons truth.



posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

HER WORDS.


‘This house must oppose extreme speech, otherwise our society will no longer be the free society it was.’



posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Merkel's comments sound like a typical discussion on "The View".
If she loses her position, maybe she could get a spot on that show.
She would fit right in with Joy and Whoopie.



posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 08:40 AM
link   

But freedom of expression has its limits. Those limits begin where hatred is spread.They begin where the dignity of other people is violated. This house will and must oppose extreme speech.Otherwise our society will no longer be the free society that it was.


They begin where the dignity of other people is violated. This house will and must oppose extreme speech.

Otherwise our society will no longer be the free society that it was

Contradiction.



Definition of dignity
1: formal reserve or seriousness of manner, appearance, or language
2: the quality or state of being worthy, honored, or esteemed
3a: high rank, office, or position
b: a legal title of nobility or honor
4archaic : DIGNITARY


www.merriam-webster.com...

Synonym.

FEELINGS.

If you say something that hurts someone elses' FEELINGS.

It's extreme speech.

And it the world of POLITICS.

Everyone takes offense to something.

Merkel is wrong.

9 kinds of wrong.
edit on 29-11-2019 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: oloufo
a reply to: 727Sky

Blablablub. Typical right wing bs without substance. Never voted her partie but as a leader she is a thousend times better as this freak in the white house. By the way. What she means: we have to fight hate. Thats all and she is right.


How do you legislate what "hate" is? How do reach inside someone's head and read their heart and mind to figure that one out? And why would you ever assume government could do that or would do that ethically or fairly?

For some, government criticism is hate.



posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Remeber, to trans folk, 99% of what you say is hate.



posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 08:45 AM
link   
In a FREE society.

Say what you may, and let the chips fall where they lay.

That's what a free society is.



posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

If someone can take away your freedom of speech then I
guess they can take away all your freedoms. Which means......?


edit on 29-11-2019 by carsforkids because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: oloufo

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: oloufo
a reply to: 727Sky

Blablablub. Typical right wing bs without substance. Never voted her partie but as a leader she is a thousend times better as this freak in the white house. By the way. What she means: we have to fight hate. Thats all and she is right.

So , the situation in the US concerns you more than dictatorial government in yours ?
Wow
Dang , just dang.

Denying ignorance
Why ?
Sometimes it is easy peasy


Dictatorial? Do you even know what that means? I never ever was harmed because of something i say or wrote. Merkel is cancelour and 2021 we are voting a new one.

The question is ,
Do I care ?
Hades no .



posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Give her a break, she just wants to Make Germany Great Again, in her own way.



posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Anyway , as I have said a few times on ATS

the UK's current hate speech law is basically a logical fallacy

and every case of hate speech in court is based entirely on the "victims" subjective state of consciousness
and not objective fact, how can you prove via evidence that they were "offended"

its like the term " punching down "

it implies physical violence
but its just words falling out someones mouth onto your ears
last I checked the decibel level of human speech and the pressure wave of human speech is not enough to cause physical
harm.

and last time I checked words dont actually cause physical pain, as there is no evidence which shows that words cause the C-fibres in your brain to activate . Meaning no physical pain is actually felt from words.

hate speech is for already damaged ego's and generational guilt and anguish, generational trauma.

Currently in the UK , if I were to say something deemed by the government to be hateful
or by someone to be offensive and they considered it hate speech
then I could be locked up

now its logical fallacy , as the law states that hate speech is anything which can lead to further harm

here it is


In England and Wales and Scotland the Public Order Act 1986 prohibits, by its Part 3, expressions of racial hatred, which is defined as hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.

Section 18 of the Act says: A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if— (a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or (b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

Offences under Part 3 carry a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment or a fine or both.[8] The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 inserted Section 4A into the Public Order Act 1986.

That part prohibits anyone from causing alarm or distress. Section 4A states, in part: (1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress. ... (5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.[9]



Notice how vague and undefined the terms are , Alarm and distress, who is the arbiter of alarm and distress , its surely a subjective state of consciousness , one which cannot be proven in court.

Can intent be proven , if the subject matter itself is subjective
its basically one persons word over another.

I think its like the slipper slope fallacy , If I were to say A, B, or C, then another person would go out and Commit acts X,Y,and Z



posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 09:17 AM
link   
If you put a limit on anything, eventually the limit will "move" one way or another. If you want something to be "free" then you have to be willing to accept the bad parts with the good. If all you want to hear is "good" speech then you better hope the next generation shares your views or you're screwed.



posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Boadicea

HER WORDS.


‘This house must oppose extreme speech, otherwise our society will no longer be the free society it was.’


Exactly. Just like I oppose the extreme speech of the oh-so-politically correct trans ideology... while trans activists oppose my extreme speech. And many politicians. And as long as everyone is free to oppose whatever speech anyone is spewing it's all good.

Instead of twisting and contorting her words to say something she isn't (even if -- as you seem to believe -- she is thinking something different), agree vehemently and HOLD HER TO HER WORD!!!

Freedom of speech for ALL -- both for and against whatever.



posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Boadicea

Remeber, to trans folk, 99% of what you say is hate.


Exactly!!! But I'm still free to contradict, oppose and argue the point. And I do even as they want me to STFU. So damn right I'm going to protect the rights of people to use their free speech to contradict, oppose and argue the point.

I'll hold Merkel to her words... freedom of speech for all, including those who contradict, oppose and argue the point.



posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

When a government representative wants to ban speech, it isn't just an opinion.

It's called censorship.

She is always welcome to her opinion, but when her "opinion" is to censor, then it's stops being an "opinion" and becomes, instead, fascism, authoritarianism, whatever the hell you want to call it.



posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Boadicea

When a government representative wants to ban speech, it isn't just an opinion.

It's called censorship.

She is always welcome to her opinion, but when her "opinion" is to censor, then it's stops being an "opinion" and becomes, instead, fascism, authoritarianism, whatever the hell you want to call it.


And when she actually states that she wants to "ban" or "censor" speech... and/or when she introduces any such legislation... Then I will use her own words against her.

And I don't need or want to make any crap about her or anyone else for my own feigned self-righteous indignation.

You might want to remember what happened when the boy cried "wolf" too many times...



posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Who decides what is hate speech? Some consider it hate speech to say illegals should not be allowed to stay. That's a pretty slippery slope.



posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Boadicea

When a government representative wants to ban speech, it isn't just an opinion.

It's called censorship.

She is always welcome to her opinion, but when her "opinion" is to censor, then it's stops being an "opinion" and becomes, instead, fascism, authoritarianism, whatever the hell you want to call it.


And when she actually states that she wants to "ban" or "censor" speech......


She.

Just.

Did.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join