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 Blaine91555
Alex Jones is not complex. He needs controversy to keep the money flowing into his organization and his own pocket.
It is his job basically.
Everything he does is about power and money. Alex would have been really angry had he not been arrested.
What is most amazing about Jones is how many people allow him to define their lives based on his exaggerations and lies.
It's pretty sad actually. He must be really charismatic and skilled at manipulating people.
The number of people who believe in Jones is so tiny I would have been surprised if Geraldo would have acted any differently.
You have to have an audience to stay on the air. Geraldo attracts millions of viewers.
Jones attracts a few anarchists and angry young people between keg parties.
They chose not to and brought down their own problems. I have no sympathy for them.
Originally posted by scientist
could you agree that on this same token (civil rights) without the protests, the public outcry and eventual changes, would not have happened as quick, if at all? I mean, it was the images in papers, magazines and on TV that really put things into perspective. If no one was protesting in the streets, and trying to do it all legally, who the hell would have cared? It was the public that ultimately decided, and they may not have if it were not for the public displays and protests - a majority of which were NOT done on permits.
Originally posted by lightworker12
First of all one or two sentences in my post were conjecture, the rest is 100% solid fact about the law and the fact that he had those filming people.
1) He had no ID. In some cases, this is enough to warrant an arrest if there are no other means of identifying the person.
2) All of the protestors could have been arrested because their protest was illegal and had no permit (before you say that such a law is facist, I invite you to look into how large groups of people gathering in the busiest parts of NYC can clog up sidewalks and streets, aka big transit problems).
3) The above two make the arrest legally warranted, and this part is conjecture. Knowing the material of Jones and the crowd he was with, there is strong circumstancial evidence that he probably made a bigger deal out of the initial police encounter than was at all needed, and lead to his arrest. We know what he preaches, so it is likely that he accused the police of singling him out and made a fuss about a police state, when in fact the officer's conduct was perfectly acceptable and warranted.
[edit on 9-9-2007 by lightworker12]
[edit on 9-9-2007 by lightworker12]
Originally posted by xHADEEZx
First of all having to have a permit to film somewhere is a stupid law in the first place. that law in itself should let you see how much they try to control us.
Originally posted by pavil
Sure that would be a pretty fair statement.
Am I still a foe? JK
Originally posted by pavil
Just because you think a law is "stupid" does not give you the right to ignore it without consequences.
Just try drinking and driving and use that logic to the judge.
If you think a law is wrong, then go about constructive ways of changing / repealing it.
The post you want the moderators to delete, while caustic, wasn't directed at anyone in particular in this discussion.
I know it's hard to keep a civil tone. I do find it funny that you want to censor someone for being objectional in your opinion, though. Seems odd to me considering the topic of discussion.
Originally posted by astmonster
Has Alex been sent to death row yet?
How about Gitmo?
Actually he belongs in "the nearest nut house".
Right next to Sean Penn, Rosie the elephant,
Charlie Sheehan, and anyone esle who thinks 911 was an inside job
And you think getting arrested for doing something non-violent in the public interest is not constructive in terms of driving a police state point home? .....It was simply just another show of ignorance from the usual type of suspects. .....What did that person add to the discussion beside making slanderous remarks about the type of people that under US law could very well sue him? ...What did that person add to the discussion beside making slanderous remarks about the type of people that under US law could very well sue him?
Free speech is the ideal but do we really want people clogging up ATS threads with such unreasoned comments?
Originally posted by pavil
Originally posted by xHADEEZx
First of all having to have a permit to film somewhere is a stupid law in the first place. that law in itself should let you see how much they try to control us.
Just because you think a law is "stupid" does not give you the right to ignore it without consequences. Just try drinking and driving and use that logic to the judge. If you think a law is wrong, then go about constructive ways of changing / repealing it.
The post you want the moderators to delete, while caustic, wasn't directed at anyone in particular in this discussion. I know it's hard to keep a civil tone. I do find it funny that you want to censor someone for being objectional in your opinion, though. Seems odd to me considering the topic of discussion.
YOU NEED TO GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR MOUTH.
Originally posted by pavil
The other poster did infact say it was a stupid law. That does not change the fact that it is a law. You do not get to pick which laws you feel like obeying. That was my point.
I wasn't comparing alex jones to drunk driving. I was just showcasing the logic of someone's opinon of a "stupid law", disobeying it, and how that looks to the legal system.
Not particularly effective for my taste. If indeed it is a "Police state" wouldn't be incarcerated by said State being pretty darn awful.
You imply by "Police State" that you wouldn't have any rights, so why just sacrifice yourself that way. Fight the Power, if that is the case.
I don't think that person really stepped outside the T & C's compared to what others have said. It was not a personal attack on a specific ATS'er.
There was nothing slanderous in what he said that a court of law would uphold. Please feel free to forward it to the celebrities mentioned and see what happens.
I'll grant you it didn't add to the discussion, but my point is valid. You want to support Alex Jones right to expression, yet you feel this persons comments deserving of censoring while staying within the "law" of ATS. That's a double standard to me.
I have heard far worse statements then the one made and no action has been deemed necessary by the staff of ATS, that's all I am saying.
Originally posted by Terapin
IMHO Geraldo is an even bigger idiot who's sole motivation is self promotion.
If you are in the business of making a film you absolutely MUST acquire a permit, and this rule is not just for New York but can be found in most major cities and even some small towns.
Tourists are generally exempt so long as they are not staging big productions. Alex Jones was well aware that a permit was required for his film crew.
There are several reasons why permitting is important. Film production often tends to draw a crowd and interferes with the normal flow of the city.
Unobstructed sidewalks and streets are important to traffic flow and the right of citizens to go about their daily lives such as going to work, or shopping.
This is also the reason why permits are needed for any protest. It is not a matter of impinging on your right to free speech,
it is about public safety and city functionality.
Lets say for example that an anti Martian group wanted to stage a protest, and it just so happened that a large conference of Martian residents just so happened to be in the city at the time. Permitting would ensure that proper police protection would be present to prevent any violence and to make sure that the traffic flowed properly.
I have often seen protests taking place on subjects that I disagree with, yet they were orderly and well policed to prevent any problems.
It is the same reason why permits and regulations are in place around reproductive health clinics. Free speech is great, but when it infringes on others rights it needs to be regulated
Alex Jones made the choice NOT to get the required permit even though he was fully aware of it's requirement and reasons.
He made the choice to participate in an action that was unlawful. He must therefore be held responsible for his actions.
Originally posted by Terapin
Marge, can I and a bunch of friends, say about 50, stage a protest on the high price of Kippers, in front of your house. We would be chanting slogans, and marching back and fourth for a few days. Holding signs and publicly eating sardines in protest.
Since you think free speech means say whatever you want, when ever you want, where ever you want, then I guess you wouldn't mind at all.
My guess is that their permit was not granted because they filed too late, had no organised group nor plans, and simply didn't read the form instructions.
NYC often grants permits on all sorts of silly subjects. It isn't about the denial of free speech. It is about making sure that a group of protesters do not interfere with other citizens rights along the way.
We will start our protest outside your house around 2 AM if that is OK with you, as that is the best time for Kipper Protesting according to our organizations handbook.
We may even fill the street with dumped high priced kippers like a mass die off. That would smell heavenly.
Originally posted by pavil
No I wouldn't demonstrate as I feel that is a "feel good" measure for those who do the demonstrating. There are process to follow to get legislation and laws changed in this country, I would do those if I really was intent on "making a difference". Ever hear of petition drives ect...?
Please show me an instance where some group is denied their right to protest.
They may be limited where they protest but even the KKK and Nazi's still can protest.
Only those who do not even apply for a permit are the one's who cry wolf.
The "I'm above that law because I don't like it" train of thought goes nowhere with me. You work within the system to repeal and change laws and do civil disobedience if you want, just doing civil disobedience gets you nowhere IMO.
If you are intent of violating laws to show your oppostiion, be prepared to suffer the consequences.
People do that every day in America. That is their choice.
Originally posted by pavil
The other poster did infact say it was a stupid law. That does not change the fact that it is a law. You do not get to pick which laws you feel like obeying. That was my point.
I wasn't comparing alex jones to drunk driving. I was just showcasing the logic of someone's opinon of a "stupid law", disobeying it, and how that looks to the legal system.
Not particularly effective for my taste. If indeed it is a "Police state" wouldn't be incarcerated by said State being pretty darn awful.
You imply by "Police State" that you wouldn't have any rights, so why just sacrifice yourself that way. Fight the Power, if that is the case.
I'll grant you it didn't add to the discussion, but my point is valid. You want to support Alex Jones right to expression, yet you feel this persons comments deserving of censoring while staying within the "law" of ATS. That's a double standard to me.
I have heard far worse statements then the one made and no action has been deemed necessary by the staff of ATS, that's all I am saying.
No actually, I'm not. Please show me groups that have been denied their right to protest. By that I mean have applied to protest and do so in a peaceful manner. Since you seem to think there are lots of them why don't you show me seven ok? Should be easy enough for you.
Originally posted by StellarX
Originally posted by pavil
Please show me an instance where some group is denied their right to protest.
Your kidding, right?
You seem to be forgetting the fact that there is a context to every act and clearly Alex is doing something of note while that poster did nothing but spew nonsense and ignorance. What has Alex said and done to make him seem as deserving of sanction as poster in question? Have Alex not contributed something to our understand of who we are dealing with in our fight against the satanistic globalist ( i don't believe in Satan but the term does suit these people) new world order?
Originally posted by pavil
Man, you sure like to quote....
No actually, I'm not. Please show me groups that have been denied their right to protest.
By that I mean have applied to protest and do so in a peaceful manner.
Since you seem to think there are lots of them why don't you show me seven ok? Should be easy enough for you.
Oh I see now. As long as someone is doing something of note, however and by whom that is determined I'm not sure of,
it is automatically deemed more worthy of protection of their free speech.
How silly of me, I thought they applied equally to all. I stand corrected.