Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Freedom Of Speech, ATS, and Ending The Eternal September

page: 2
35
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


SkepticOverlord, I have a great deal of respect for you and the Mods. I agree that it was time to close the thread.

However, I do have some concerns regarding free speech here at ATS, and what happened in the Tony Snow thread. Frankly, I am a little confused.

After hearing about Tony Snows death, I actually came to ATS to see if other members shared my opinion. After following the thread very closely, I decided it was best to keep my opinion to myself. Why, because I did not feel free to express it.

In your final post you stated:




Regardless of your opinion of Mr. Snow's contribution to political media, those who engaged in gratuitous grave dancing should be ashamed.


My question is, who decides when it is gratuitous grave dancing, or an honest opinion? (I don't condone GGD by any means.) Does who's grave you are dancing on have anything to do with it?

When the headline reads:

OJ Simpson dead at.....

Will you tell the members that they should be ashamed when the first opinion comes in: "He was a murderer and he deserved what he got. I'm glad he's dead." Is that gratuitous grave dancing, or just an opinion?




posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   
The thing about the net - and boards like ATS - is that anyone can "be" anything they want to be, because of the veil of anonimity afforded to them.

Thats the veru crux of the "eternal september".

The general rule of thumb people really need to apply is this - would they say what they type, with the same tones and insinuations to the person if they were standing eyeball to eyeball with them, with no fear of verbal or physical reprisal.

In most cases I don't think they would. And if you wouldn't do it in person, why do it on a message board?

Lack of respect, and general obnoxious behaviour is rampant on the net. You only have to read Youtube comment sections to understand the level that some people want to sink to.

The beauty of ATS is that we just don't do that here. Theres plenty of other places for people to go to if all they want to do is post in a cesspit where every other word is an expletive, and being obnoxious is a badge of honour.

Countless, chat rooms, comment sections, boards and blogs etc will allow that if you really want to sink to that level, but ATS fights against it and stands above it.

Intelligent debate, with respect and courtesy.

Its not a hard concept to grasp.

And neither is this - you don't pee in your pool. If you do, who's fault is that, exactly? Is it the people who built the pools fault? - no.

If people can accept those things, then September ends.



[edit on 13/0708/08 by neformore]



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I knew someone would bring this up. I thought they would reference Charles Manson, but Zarqawi is just as good/bad.

BH, do you really equate the death of Zarqawi with the Death of Tony Snow? Tell me it ain't so.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
BH, do you really equate the death of Zarqawi with the Death of Tony Snow? Tell me it ain't so.


THAT is the point that BH is making that you do not understand. WHO decides who is bad and who is good? Who decides who is worthy of respect and who is not?

You think Zarqawi is bad, so you express your opinion and disrespect him in death because of things he did in life.

I think Tony Snow is bad, so I express my opinion and disrespect him in death because of things he did in life.

Him being a politician, a public figure and an American does not make him good and worthy of respect.

What you can't understand, because you are blinded by your bias, is that what DOES equate is your opinion of Zarqawi and my opinion of Snow - its the same thing.

[edit on 7/13/08 by NovusOrdoMundi]



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi
 


I have to agree that is goes sometimes one sided, I also find hard to figure out by some responses who is the one holding the reigns of what is considered right or wrong.

It seems to me that while some are targeted by their opinions others find their own to be the right ones and only ones to set as example.

But then again usually the moral majority is the one setting the rules in every situation.


Is human nature



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Skeptic Overlord


I'm sorry sir, but I take issue with this comment;

" Free expression is not a license to offend "

We both have the God given right to tell someone what they may not want to hear!!!!

I however, am not advocating hurling insults 24/7

and at the same time, I stongly believe all of the following quotes;

[ my comments in parenthesis ]



"" Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.
Justice William O. Douglas "" [ if we can't call a tyrant a tyrant or a traitor a traitor then we have no fee speech ]



"" Free speech is intended to protect the controversial and even outrageous word; and not just comforting platitudes too mundane to need protection.
General Colin Powell ""



"" Free speech is not to be regulated like diseased cattle and impure butter. The audience that hissed yesterday may applaud today, even for the same performance.
William O. Douglas "" [ the politically correct words poisons the mind ]



""Ignorant free speech often works against the speaker. That is one of several reasons why it must be given rein instead of suppressed.
Anna Quindlen "" [ one of the best ways to tell someones character is when they are allowed to speak ]



"" To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.
Frederick Douglass ""




"" The most censored speech in America today is not flag-burning, pornography, or the press.
Phyllis Schlafly "" [ It's telling the truth that is not allowed ]



"" No speech can stain what is noble by nature.
Sophocles ""



"" Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful.
Charles Bradlaugh "" [ how can we expose lies, if the liars or certain groups are protected from exposure ? ]


"" Our Constitution was not written in the sands to be washed away by each wave of new judges blown in by each successive political wind.
Hugo Black "" [ or by a trendy politically correct speech pattern ]


"" The Framers of the Constitution knew that free speech is the friend of change and revolution. But they also knew that it is always the deadliest enemy of tyranny.
Hugo Black "" [ and that is why free speech is under attack , because it will expose the liars for what they really are ]


"" All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
Thomas Jefferson "" [ I refuse to keep silent ]



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi
 



Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
What you can't understand, because you are blinded by your bias, is that what DOES equate is your opinion of Zarqawi and my opinion of Snow - its the same thing.

[edit on 7/13/08 by NovusOrdoMundi]


It doesn't equate at all. My dislike for Zarqawi is based upon facts...he was a murderer. He slit throats for fun. Your hatred for Snow was based upon an opinion.

To hate someone because they follow conservative principles is a sign of cognitive dissociation.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
I also find hard to figure out by some responses who is the one holding the reigns of what is considered right or wrong.


When it is a topic like a death, I personally don't think anyones opinion is right or wrong. Misguided? Maybe. But wrong or right? No.

Its all about perception. Tony Snow was associated with people I perceive to be bad people, and people that I believe would not associate with anyone unlike themselves. Therefore, my opinion is that he was not a person worthy of respect.

Is my perception misguided? Its possible. Maybe I am seeing things that aren't there.

Others saw Tony Snow as a man of integrity, good personality and as a hard working individual who served his country's government and was a journalist. Therefore, their opinion is that he was a person worthy of respect.

Is their perception misguided? Its possible. Maybe they aren't seeing things that are there.

When it boils down to the bare basics, no one's opinion is right or wrong, and it should be treated that way. Everyone perceives people and situations differently, and that is how we get different opinions. We can only base our opinions on what we currently know and believe, not what everyone else knows or believes.


Originally posted by jsobecky
To hate someone because they follow conservative principles is a sign of cognitive dissociation.


I don't care what political principles he had. I don't like him because he is a part of the CFR. I don't like what they do.

It is a FACT that they are a criminal organization. It is a FACT that the Bush Administration is treasonous. It is a FACT that FOX News has lied to the American people.

Simply because Tony Snow did not slit throats does not make him any better of a person.

EDIT: Added response to jsobecky

[edit on 7/13/08 by NovusOrdoMundi]



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
To hate someone because they follow conservative principles is a sign of cognitive dissociation.


Sorry Js but on this one I have to laugh my hart out, but I guess half of the ATS community will fall under sign of cognitive dissociation because for what I can see no everybody agree with conservative principles.

I guess I will be for now on plague with cognitive dissociation syndrome.


Just joking Js.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
[My dislike for Zarqawi is based upon facts...


Tony Snow was a lying sack of crap for a criminal organization (FACTS) and the world is a better place without him! (also fact)
.

edit: and I really Really REALLY hate people who think that just because someone is dead you should not speak ill of them or that somehow they deserve some kind of "innate" or "objective" respect.

.

[edit on 7/13/2008 by Gools]



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by toasted
 


Free speech allows a person to hold unpopular opinions. It also allows one person to tell another person what he thinks of him/her. That's what Novus doesn't like; he wants to speak his mind without being challenged.

That's in the purest sense. It doesn't necessarily apply here on ATS because of the T&C. The insults, that is.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gools

Originally posted by jsobecky
[My dislike for Zarqawi is based upon facts...


Tony Snow was a lying sack of crap for a criminal organization (FACTS) and the world is a better place without him! (also fact)
.


Prove your ALLEGATIONS.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
To hate someone because they follow conservative principles is a sign of cognitive dissociation.


And here is a major problem imo. Some take their political affiliation so seriously that any discussion against that philosophy is taken as an attack on themselves. We get complaints like that, from both ideologies, it's like, "What? What's the problem here?"

You want to see a lack of freedom of speech? You should see it from a staffers point of view. WE have to watch VERY carefully what we say or we get, "This, and from a moderator."



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by jsobecky
To hate someone because they follow conservative principles is a sign of cognitive dissociation.


Sorry Js but on this one I have to laugh my hart out, but I guess half of the ATS community will fall under sign of cognitive dissociation because for what I can see no everybody agree with conservative principles.

I guess I will be for now on plague with cognitive dissociation syndrome.


Just joking Js.


So, in other words, you are saying you HATE conservatives, marg?

Because that is what I WROTE.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by Gools

Originally posted by jsobecky
[My dislike for Zarqawi is based upon facts...


Tony Snow was a lying sack of crap for a criminal organization (FACTS) and the world is a better place without him! (also fact)
.


Prove your ALLEGATIONS.




This is an excellent example of why you get no respect from me and probably never will.


For somebody who has been around ATS for so long you sure have not changed your ignorant rhetoric over the years.

You're wasting you time here on ATS and so am I having any kind of interaction with you.
.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Well some, yes specially the self appointed self righteous ones, others not, I don't hate you, you know that.


Even when I may disagree on many of your opinions, but then again I am at that point in my life that I am not going to make an issue of it, just laugh at it.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 



Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by jsobecky
To hate someone because they follow conservative principles is a sign of cognitive dissociation.


And here is a major problem imo. Some take their political affiliation so seriously that any discussion against that philosophy is taken as an attack on themselves. We get complaints like that, from both ideologies, it's like, "What? What's the problem here?"


It has nothing to do with politics. I could have as easily subbed "likes vanilla ice cream" or "has blue eyes" in place of "follow conservative principles".

Look at it this way: there are people who hate conservatives so much that they will butt into a thread about conservatives just to denigrate them. Is it any wonder that people take that as a personal attack?



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
That's what Novus doesn't like; he wants to speak his mind without being challenged.


You're wrong. I like debate. I don't get offended when I hear something I don't like. I simply debate it.

It didn't make me angry that all of you respected him. It didn't offend me that you were mourning him. I never attacked you for your opinion. I never told you to leave the thread. I never insulted you (you've yet to explain what insults I used, by the way). I never said you are wrong and I am right.

If I didn't want to be challenged, I would have posted my first post and left so I could not see the responses. Instead, I continued debating it.

You people got offended and attacked me for what I had said. You were the ones telling me to leave the thread. You were the ones using insults (you in particular).

So please don't try to reverse the blame. I had two posts removed in that thread, and they were "Off Topic" posts. No violations of Manners & Decorum. No T&C Violations. Off topic posts. If I did any of the things you have accused me of, it wouldn't have simply been an off topic post removal.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
The general rule of thumb people really need to apply is this - would they say what they type, with the same tones and insinuations to the person if they were standing eyeball to eyeball with them, with no fear of verbal or physical reprisal.


Yes....absolutely and without hesitation. What else would you expect from someone confident in their reasoning and conclusions? Is it right to assume what everyone types on these forums is not what they would express to you face-to-face? If so, can we discount SkepticOverlord's contributions as less than what he really thinks? What I commit to write and express is my opinion....altering it in some way because of some "anonymity" is less than intellectual honesty.

It's only anonymous on the reader's side...from here, at this keyboard, it's personal and mine.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   
I see that this is getting a lot of interesting comments as well as debate, but I'm certain there are of course differences of opinons, as I can read as well as the next poster, but everyone has to remember that not everyone is from the same country here.

Freedom of Speech means different things to different people, and while I respect FOS to the Nth degress, it's not the same in every country like it's supposed to be here in America. While everyone is sitting here decrying Freedom of Speech here, they seem to forget often enough that the Internet is the world's largest surveillance device, not specifying ATS has a hand in that at all, before someone gets up on that soapbox, I am however stating that everything is digitally recorded as it's sent through the nether-regions, or rather ether-regions of the World-Wide Web.

Freedom of Speech, or freedom of thought, it's all the same here electronically, where your words are recorded, and you are electronically hooked to the internet or ARPANET you are in essence telling everything you think through digitally manipulated means of tikka tikka tapping away on your laptop or desktop computer, you are expressing your Freedom of Speech, but never ever forget it is being watched, sorted, and filed.

Everyone's country has it's seperate laws of course, but I believe whatt SkepticOverlord was trying to state, is while the ATS Admin loves to give out Freedom of Speech here with ATS bounds, they do have the right through ownership to edit, modify, and delete stuff altogether, because we all know, we clicked on the acceptance of the webiste of ATS's Terms and Conditions in order to become a member of this international electronic arena of discussion.


[edit on 13-7-2008 by SpartanKingLeonidas]





new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join