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: 3
27
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

That’s the problem with modern tyrants, they don’t know how to get the will of the people behind them by being incremental. Start with something most everyone can get behind...Like death penalty is on the table for telemarketing.




posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

But she doesn't want that. If they go down the route of banning hate speech, then you become a criminal for what you do here if you live in Germany. Merkel calls it freeing society. I am sure a previous leader thought the same about eliminating certain things to elevate German society.



posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy



This house will and must oppose extreme speech.


She sure did.

Cause that's a very broad brush.


edit on 29-11-2019 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

She said she didn't want tio ban speech like most politicians apologize or claim they aren't for banning guns.

Perhaps you've never read any of Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series, but he had to have based Aes Sedai off politicians - masters of saying things without directly saying them.



posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Criticising immigration policy is extreme speech according to some.

AKA hate speech.

Really can't point out law breakers, or some snip.




posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 11:17 AM
link   
The dignity of Germany has been violated due to Angela Merkel immigration policy. She opened the floodgates on sexual assaults and rapes in Germany. Now she wants to attack people freedom of speech by defining what is hate speech. I bet they target anyone criticizing her immigration policy.



posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 11:24 AM
link   
The German approach to what they call the "Basic Law" and what Americans call the Constitution is different.

This article makes for good reading for those interested in the differences.

Legalities aside, Merkel is very stale as a national leader. Her time has passed, and despite her promise to leave in 2021, the German political system shows no great movement toward identifying who should be the candidates to follow in her stead. I do not assume she will leave her position as promised; she may well give a "no one is yet appropriate to be the next chancellor" speech and leave it at that. Her so-called "designated successor" is remarkably unpopular at the moment.

The "Grand Coalition" style of governing Germany has not produced much of note lately. The mediocre quality of these "GroKo" governments has resulted in slowly growing frustration among the populace, and one party that has benefited from the frustration has been the AfD.

Cheers


edit on 29-11-2019 by F2d5thCavv2 because: -s



posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Basically we have entered a new Dark Age courtesy of the PC crowd. I don't care because I hold those people in such low esteem I don't talk to them anyway.



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 04:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
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.


We all decide for ourselves. And we can say so or we can say nothing. And others can have no opinion, or others can agree, or others can contradict, oppose and argue the point. Which includes government officials, elected by the voters based on what their positions. They can agree or they can contradict and oppose.

The question here though is whether or not Merkel is calling for using government force to ban (and presumably punish) that speech. She did not do so here.



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 04:34 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

No, she did not. In fact, her very words belie your assertion.

One cannot contradict speech that has been banned or censored. One cannot oppose speech that has been banned or censored.



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 05:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Boadicea

But she doesn't want that.


Maybe she was speaking in codes that I don't understand... maybe you know what she really thinks and I don't. I can only go by her words. She did not call for banning or censorship. She only declared that speech can and will be contradicted and opposed. Those were her words.

One cannot contradict speech that does not exist because it's been banned or censored. One cannot oppose speech that does not exist because it's been banned or censored.



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 05:42 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

You've noticed, of course, that most of these folks, not just Merkel, can not, or rather, will not, define what is, or isn't, "extreme" speech.

Which leaves it open to, shall we say, creative interpretation.



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 03:15 PM
link   
I feel very bad for the people who have tried to stand up to this in places like France, England and Germany.
Any questioning or criticism of hosting people of Islamic backgrounds was heavily silenced.

So much so that the people behind the strategic movement couldnt hide their blatant agenda.



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Germany survived the Protestant Reformation, so I'm not sure where Merkel was going with this?
Perhaps the German political leadership has become a vulnerable house of cards due to a dilution of public opinion.
I would need to study the AfD and the Green party in a lot more depth before I could make any conclusions.



posted on Dec, 1 2019 @ 05:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

A constitutional protection like the 1st amendment, which can only be enforced in the US territory - exists only to give us a means to seeking redress from the violation of a natural right.

The right to speak freely itself exists separate from all laws or governments. It exists within each person independent of anything else.

The Constitution just offers us a legal remedy to restitution if that right is ever violated. In fact, the right to sue is in the 1st - petitioning for redress of grievances.

So all the legal stuff is just to give us the keys to the kingdom so to speak, as you are your own master. They just wanted it in writing, lol.

People who believe in creating laws to suppress "hate speech" (which is usually actually opposing views/politics) are totalitarian control freaks sneakily using creative language/narratives to oppress their opponent via law/guns/jails.

That is a clear abuse of power and just having a system flawed enough to be wide open for this kind of abuse is a bad idea. So to be better than the Nazis we are banning all Nazi speech just like they banned their political opponents back in the 1930s? Yeah it doesn't make sense - because they became the monster they fought and are the new Nazis banning free speech. But this time it's way more ironic for sure.

The point here is that the Constitution of the US or Germany or treaties etc are irrelevant and not the basis of human rights. They are simply tools to create lawsuits if you think you were violated in the past, survived, and now wanna sue over it.

In real life, the physical world, each human body is endowed and characterized by their dignity and independence as a human that is his/her own master and is their own property. This is our very nature in the physical material world you see around you.

All these people we see are ignorant, thoughtless, misled, overgeneralizing, acting on base emotions/desires, etc.

Hardly anyone studies John Locke, Madison, Jay, Rousseau, Montesquieu, or any of this extremely informative stuff explaining human rights theory.

All these people working in govt or blabbing on TV about politics or whatever, are headless chickens running around. They have no clue...



posted on Dec, 1 2019 @ 05:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: neo96

You've noticed, of course, that most of these folks, not just Merkel, can not, or rather, will not, define what is, or isn't, "extreme" speech.

Which leaves it open to, shall we say, creative interpretation.


Anything even questioning govt or corporations and tarnishing their reputation is extremist and will be illegal.

Anything disparaging a protected class of citizens will be too.

If you complain while you're loaded on the train car and shipped off to your new living quarters - that will also be extremist speech and will be handled very strictly.

How about it's best you say nothing at all?



posted on Dec, 1 2019 @ 06:03 AM
link   
a reply to: oloufo
Merkel can't hold a candle to Trump. I do not know your station in life but if I was guessing it is of little substance and you are jealous of others successes. No one in their right mind who loves freedom of speech, the second amendment and ones own country could back Merkel. Angela Merkel is an East German through and through. And you Ma'am or sir are a Marxist Communist yourself.



posted on Dec, 1 2019 @ 06:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Boadicea

But she doesn't want that. If they go down the route of banning hate speech, then you become a criminal for what you do here if you live in Germany. Merkel calls it freeing society. I am sure a previous leader thought the same about eliminating certain things to elevate German society.



A wise man once noted, rather aptly, that a Nation cannot build itself by tearing down it's people. Instead, society is elevated when we build others up.

Through education, understanding, camaraderie and solidarity, forgiveness and charity, etc - we heal and build our citizens.

Seeking to harm and destroy people simply for saying something is the exact opposite. It is tragic.



posted on Dec, 1 2019 @ 06:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Ansuzrune

The TV and media teach people materialism, shallowness, selfishness, etc.

It just so happens that Communism reflects that selfish childish mindset and is a convenient tool to tint their glasses rosey red, so to speak.

What the puppet masters are really after is just power and control. They don't really care or believe in workers uniting and all that jazz. It's just window dressing for their upcoming dynastic reign.

Whatever it takes for us to believe in so they can finally clinch complete outright power will be fine. Whether that be Scientology, Communism, or by simply dumbing us down. Whatever it takes works. For centuries religion was enough but we today need something a little more sophisticated with less morality.



posted on Dec, 1 2019 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash


In real life, the physical world, each human body is endowed and characterized by their dignity and independence as a human that is his/her own master and is their own property. This is our very nature in the physical material world you see around you.... Hardly anyone studies John Locke, Madison, Jay, Rousseau, Montesquieu, or any of this extremely informative stuff explaining human rights theory.


Or they do study Locke, etc., only to better understand how to thwart our Natural Rights.... characterized in the Declaration of Independence as "self-evident" -- that which we can do for ourselves and by ourselves.

One of which, of course, is the ability to think and reason and to express our thoughts for ourselves and by ourselves -- whether for or against or indifferent. Or we can choose not to express ourselves at all.


All these people working in govt or blabbing on TV about politics or whatever, are headless chickens running around. They have no clue...


I strongly disagree. I think they know exactly what they are doing, because they do know and understand Natural Law and Natural Rights, and have found the weak links -- the easily manipulated. They use the opportunity to sow division and conflict... divide and conquer. So when Merkel states that freedom of speech is subject to being contradicted and opposed, someone comes along and misrepresents and mischaracterizes her words to say that she is calling for censorship and banning of free speech, creating unnecessary and inappropriate conflict among the people. And, of course, inevitably Godwin's law is invoked.

Merkel is right: Freedom of speech DEMANDS the inclusion of contradicting and opposing opinions ALSO being freely expressed and disseminated and discussed. And there is no virtue or practical value in misconstruing Merkel's words... basically bearing false witness against her.

As I have already noted, it is impossible to "contradict" or "oppose" speech which has been banned or censored and therefore does not exist.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join