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.

 

Still Think You've Got Freedom of Speech?

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


I seriously doubt they could get a permit to have their own parade follow right up behind the traditional one, following the same route, and in a postion to garner the same national attention.

If they were granted a permit to parade, it would be down some back alley on some obscure day when no one was watching.




posted on May, 25 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by scarlett1125
Remember that when they do this to one American, they are doing it to all of us.



This is something that applies to all of our rights and protections, and that we should all remember. If the gov is doing it to someone else, it'll get around to you eventually, regardless of the exuse they use.



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by resistor
 


Indeed...




When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the sick, the so-called incurables,
I did not speak out;
because I was not mentally ill.

When they came for the Catholics,
I did not speak out;
because I was a Protestant.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.


- attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group.


I would also like to point out a few other threads going right now that have a lot to do with relenquishment of our rights, and the final march of the police-state.

This one talks about a citizen who has been seized without any due process or presentation of evidence...

Government lawyers told federal judges that the president can send the military into any U.S. neighborhood, capture a citizen and hold him in prison without charge, indefinitely.


US residents in military brigs? Govt says it's war


This one is directly realted to our glorious new surveillance society...
They ARE watching.

And then of course, no one has been able to answer my question...
What freedom do you have that can not be infringed or taken away arbitrarily?






[edit on 5/25/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 



Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by jsobecky
 


I seriously doubt they could get a permit to have their own parade follow right up behind the traditional one, following the same route, and in a postion to garner the same national attention.

If they were granted a permit to parade, it would be down some back alley on some obscure day when no one was watching.


You mean tailgaiting off the other parade? Why is that necessary? Is their own cause so unpopular that they need to bask in other people's limelight?

Besides, plenty of cities and towns have multiple parades on holiday weekends.



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by resistor
 


reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Did either of you even bother to read the base article? Or any of the subsequent posts in this thread?

I don't think you did, else you would realize that the gov't has nothing to do with this issue. It's a non-profit group that is banning the vets.

Seriously, when you create posts like those you lose all credibility.



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 



I don't think you did, else you would realize that the gov't has nothing to do with this issue. It's a non-profit group that is banning the vets.


Actually, yes I have. I am fully aware that it was a non-profit group that banned the vets. But in case you missed it, we have begun discussing how that point is actually irrelevant in the overall scheme of things.

Let us not forget now either, that many roads and other seemingly public areas are now privately owned. So where exactly can we express our freedoms without some company telling us otherwise? What does it matter if the government is not allowed to silence us, if it's really beside the point anyhow at this point?



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 



Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by jsobecky
 



I don't think you did, else you would realize that the gov't has nothing to do with this issue. It's a non-profit group that is banning the vets.


Actually, yes I have. I am fully aware that it was a non-profit group that banned the vets. But in case you missed it, we have begun discussing how that point is actually irrelevant in the overall scheme of things.


No, it is not irrelevant. As a matter of fact, it is the deciding point in the issue.

Now, if you want to discuss perceived gov't intrusion into Free Speech, then start another thread. Otherwise, you're just derailing this thread.



Originally posted by jackinthebox
Let us not forget now either, that many roads and other seemingly public areas are now privately owned. So where exactly can we express our freedoms without some company telling us otherwise? What does it matter if the government is not allowed to silence us, if it's really beside the point anyhow at this point?


You can't do it on private property without the owner's permission. That much should be obvious. And that is the way it should be. You can always do it on your own private property, as long as you break no laws.



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 



Now, if you want to discuss perceived gov't intrusion into Free Speech, then start another thread. Otherwise, you're just derailing this thread.


Nice way to try and avoid the argument. But as I have already stated, the government does in fact have a role to play in this particular story. So unless you can prove otherwise, I'll leave the discussion right here in this thread thankyouverymuch.



You can't do it on private property without the owner's permission. That much should be obvious. And that is the way it should be.


Fine, then let's stop selling off public property to private interests. Otherwise, what's the point have having any of these supposed rights that so many people like to claim that we still have, if we can't use them anywhere?



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by mattifikation
 


Agreed.

As this is a privately organized parade, they can include or ban whoever they wish. The 1st amendment and its free speech protections apply only to matters involving the government, specifically any attempt by that government to limit freedom of speech. That certainly doesn't seem to be the case and, as such, the accusations of free speech obstruction in this particular matter are baseless.



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 



Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by jsobecky
 



Now, if you want to discuss perceived gov't intrusion into Free Speech, then start another thread. Otherwise, you're just derailing this thread.


Nice way to try and avoid the argument. But as I have already stated, the government does in fact have a role to play in this particular story. So unless you can prove otherwise, I'll leave the discussion right here in this thread thankyouverymuch.

You haven't made any factual argument at all. You've stated your opinion that they couldn't get a permit, which is your opinion only, no facts to back it up.

Then you post a tedious quote that has been posted here about a million times. As if it proves some point.

Other than that, you got nothing. If I missed anything important, please let me know.

And I never avoid arguments, unless my opponent is just wasting my time.





You can't do it on private property without the owner's permission. That much should be obvious. And that is the way it should be.


Originally posted by jackinthebox
Fine, then let's stop selling off public property to private interests. Otherwise, what's the point have having any of these supposed rights that so many people like to claim that we still have, if we can't use them anywhere?



What a silly argument. Seriously, are you young?



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 



And I never avoid arguments, unless my opponent is just wasting my time.


Okay, and here you still are. Talking about me not having anything important to say.




What a silly argument. Seriously, are you young?


No.

Perhaps you should ask the people who have had their houses taken so Spain can build a superhighway through Texas if it is a silly argument. Or perhaps you think it's silly that people are homeless and hungry because property that once generated tax revenue, is now sending the money overseas.

Or are you arguing that you would have no problem with it if you couldn't step out your front door without permission of some corporation, or go anywhere without paying toll after toll? That you are fine with being told what you can and can't do no matter where you go, every second of every day, by a multitude of private companies, international conglomorates, etc.?

Are you really an American? Because if you are, I have two words for you.

Sell out.

"America Free!" my foot. America bought more like it.

[edit on 5/25/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Ya freedom of speech has been gone for a while, where tf have you people been..

RNC 04, remember gitmo on the Hudson..

They arrested over 1000 people in a few days, a court ruled the arrests were unconstitutional.

This is just the start girls and boys..... We only have the freedom of the series of tubes, as soon as they clog those.. we are truely screwed.



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 08:53 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by scarlett1125
 

Well you have to look at the other view. Plus the Govt. does not give a # about our constitutional rights.



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by scarlett1125
 


I came across this a last month too this fits in this thread.


Pentagon: The internet is an enemy "weapons system"

globalresearch.ca — The Pentagon's Information Operations Roadmap is blunt about the fact that an internet, with the potential for free speech, is in direct opposition to their goals. The internet needs to be dealt with as if it were an enemy "weapons system"


www.globalresearch.ca...



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 10:59 PM
link   
In case you missed my last post, I did some extra research into the ties this group has, and I believe that it is not all as cut and dry as it seems to be.

I also agree with the fact that the companies owning roads and having the right to limit freedom of speech is a problem that is directly tied to the evil government, as someone else called it. There are a lot of dots, but many, many of those dots are connected.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join