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.

 

ADL Battles Internet Free Speech --

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   

ADL Battles Internet Free Speech --


www.rense.com

"Ms. Beaumont claimed, during her testimony, that she based this comment on her interpretation of a passage in the Bible, adding that she did not care if Jews would be offended by her ideas. However, irrespective of whether she 'cares' or not, s.13 of the Act dictates that the repeated communication via the internet of matter that is likely to expose targeted groups to hatred or contempt constitutes a discriminatory practice. Whether the person communicating the matter was in fact its author...
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   
It's Rense, I know, I know. But, that doesn't really matter so much in this case as the story is pretty straightforward.

The reason I posted this is because of the relevance to a law that is currently making it's way through our legal system.

This section, in particular, makes me wary of where H.R. 1955 is headed.

"s.13 of the Act dictates that the repeated communication via the internet of matter that is likely to expose targeted groups to hatred or contempt constitutes a discriminatory practice. "


This is what those of us here who are opposed to H.R. 1955 were talking about when we referred to the law being open to interpretation.

While what this girl said may have been "insensitive", she should not have been fined for posting bible quotes, no matter what they pertained to.

The article also says,

" Beaumont was ordered to never again post Scripture critical of homosexuals or any other specially protected group, including Jews. She faces prison if she disobeys."


This is a direct violation of free speech laws. Yet, this is EXACTLY where we, in the United States, are headed if these ridiculous laws are allowed to pass.

Jasn

www.rense.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by SimiusDei
 


The problem is not just with this proposed law. The problem is with having protected groups. Neither Jews nor gays nor Methodists nor blacks nor bungee jumpers are endangered species and ought to be protected as a group for their future survival. The law should be equal for ALL citizens, collectively and as individuals.

When nation has special rights devoted to ANY group, other than those due to an involuntary participant, then that nation has allowed the concept of elitism to become the order of the day, and only problems can come from such actions.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by NGC2736
 


Indeed!


Is not the fact that they actually label any group as "special" over another the epitome of discrimination?


It's ridiculous! They try to protect others from discrimination by discriminating.


Hypocrisy in action!

J



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 10:10 PM
link   
I realize that many of these laws are meant for the good of society, that their original intent was to better the society as a while.

But I also remember my mother telling me as a child that the road to hell was paved with good intentions.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736


But I also remember my mother telling me as a child that the road to hell was paved with good intentions.



Mother is good, mother is WISE.


The road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions. Smiles also seem to make their way into the paving.


J



new topics

top topics
 
1

log in

join