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.

 

Tin Foil Your Ass!

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Let’s talk about…

Freedom of the First Amendment vs. the Fifth Amendment.

Which would you rather preserve; you’re right of freedom of speech or your right to protection against self-incrimination?

Hard one isn’t it?

That’s a choice, would you rather be free to say what you want, or preserve your rights be forced to incriminate yourself? Which is more important? Think about that for one moment…

Those that insist about talking about their own personal drug use on this site made that choice. They choose freedom of speech over their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Those of you that want to talk about your personal drug use on this site should understand something. On this site, anything you say is available to anyone, at any time. You don’t have to be a member of abovetopsecret.com in order to read any post you make.

The site owners can only protect you so far. Push comes to shove, remember that the government can still get what they want. If they choose to, they can target you, giving police in your jurisdiction valuable evidence against you.

On this site the things you say are actually copyrighted to you individually.

The site owners are keenly aware of this, and try so hard to protect you with a simple request. SkepticOverlord is really on your side and trying to protect you here. Please listen to him on this. The rules amigos have outlined here really are for your own good, not trying to trample on your freedom of speech rights.

They need your help, and you should cooperate with them on this one. Don’t voluntarily give up your right to self-incrimination by posting word for word confessions of crimes here. It’s as stupid as teenagers who videotape their own crime wave. You don’t think that they won’t use this against you in a court of law?

This is base level stuff, it’s just protecting your rights. Do so wisely. It’s your choice. Freedom of speech or freedom against self-incrimination, you decide. The administration here feels that protecting you against self-incrimination is better a trade off for freedom of speech.

Remember abovetopsecret.com is a public place, and as a public place anything you say here is public knowledge. You have given it freely and of your own will, thus giving up your right to protection under the Fifth Amendment of the United States.

(Sorry to the rest of the world members that post on here, I am sure that this law is available in other countries but this is what I know.)

So that is why ATS has a drug policy. That is why they don’t want you talking about illegal subjects here. It’s not to trample on your rights. It’s not only to protect them. It’s to protect you the ATS member.

T.F.Y.A.

WhatUKNO
(your ATS concierge)




posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Thank you wuky for posting this. It seems self-evident to me but apparently a word or two of caution about self-incrimination does need to be mentioned. And not just about drug use.

[edit on 23-2-2009 by whitewave]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Exactly.

I just don't understand why people get so upset that their posts get deleted when it's far better for them to protect themselves by not publishing publicly their own criminal behavior.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
all depends on which country your in and if the subject matter is illegal in the country your posting from. its all relative.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by TiM3LoRd
 


Pretty much what I was getting at as well. If something is illegal in your country, don't post about it online. If you do, you give up any rights to self incrimination you have in your country.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Just because someone writes here that they did something does not mean they actually did that act. One of the things many people do on sites such as these is embellish the truth a little, usually for dramatic purposes. The writers here are mainly anonymous. I only know a few real names from this site.

The only thing that may create a problem is if someone actually threatens a real live person by name. That type of thread would cause a quandary, and the authorities may want to look into something like that.

I have the right of free speech. However, if I threaten to kill someone, then that speech indicates a possible crime. The Fifth Amendment means one does not have to answer the questions of the authorities. It does not mean one cannot incriminate themselves.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
There used to be a publication called Paladin Press that discussed any and everything and sold books about all of it. They got shut down. Then there was Loompanics Unlimited. Also got shut down. I'd hate to see ATS go that route.

T&C clearly state no discussion of illegal activities. How is that so hard to understand?

I've had people in my house that cussed like sailors and I've asked them to watch their language because 1) it's personally offensive to me and 2) I have children in the house. I have tossed people out because of their potty mouth. Yeah, they got mad at me but, oh well. My house, my rules. You don't have enough respect for me to keep your conversation clean, go yak it up somewhere else.

There's a time and a place for everything. And while we do indeed have first amendment protected free speech, there are times and places certain things are not discussed.

Do you discuss your colonoscopy procedure at the dinner table? You have the right to talk about it and get as graphic as you want but don't expect people to stick around for desert.
Do you discuss your latest sexual conquest to your mother? And when you regained consciousness did you realize that there will never be a time or place for that conversation with that person?
I could go on but you get the idea.

It's not even about free speech vs. self-incrimination. It's about respect.
Respect yourself enough to not publicly discuss things that could wind you up in jail.
Respect your listener enough to not give them ideas that may wind them up in jail.
Respect your host enough to obey the rules they set in their "house".



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by whitewave
 



Do you discuss your colonoscopy procedure at the dinner table?


Well in fact yes I do discuss my colonoscopy at the dinner table, but that's just because I have a strange family that that sort of talk is perfectly acceptable at the dinner table.

"How was your day?"

"Good, I had a camera shoved up my [snip]"

"They find anything?"

"Dead hamster."

"Ah"

"How was your day?"




posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
*Wuk, if you were the last man on Earth, women would start drinking Jonestown koolaid* :bash:


I thought I was the only one that had disgusting topics of conversation at the dinner table. I understand from several people I've dined with that it's not considered kosher. Do you know how hard it is to gross out a nurse?



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
I understand why the rules are there, but it doesn't make me any less angry about it. The only reason some of these laws are in place is to subdue the population... But that's not ATS's problem.

No, their problem is money. But I don't blame them for that either, as I'd love to make some myself.

But really, incrimination?? There are tons of accounts of drug use online. Phelps has a picture of himself inhaling a substance on film. There is nothing the law can or will do about it (although they threatened).

Joe Rogan openly discusses a chamber in his basement where he goes to take the "spirit molecule." Don't see the FBI knocking on his door, even though that is a highly illegal hallucinogen.

Plan and simple, unless you are buying or selling, it isn't illegal, unless they find it.. Doesn't that say something about our country?



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
SantaClaus,

Just ask the guys on To Catch a Preditor about online communications being used against them in a court room.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   
The rules are simple and the guidelines are clear.
It wasn't a bait and switch where the rules were suddenly changed.

If talking about subjects that are outside of the ATS rules is that important, then the individual can set up his or her own blog or find another site that allows it. It is not that big of a deal.



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


The persons in that show were there to commit a crime. It may have been entrapment, but the intent of the persons was clear: to have sex with an underage person.

Discussing something that is illegal is quite different than doing it. Eyebrows would get raised if someone was discussing the intent to actually commit some type of crime. Free speech may still apply, but the person will get investigated if they are talking about committing a crime, especially a violent one. This would be true if one was to write a letter to the editor of a newspaper about their intent to commit a crime. The authorities would be able to read it, just like any other person.

A signed confession is used in a court of law to get a conviction. Is it not free speech that the author of such confession is using?

BTW whitewave, magazines such as High Times still exist, so those companies probably shut down for other reasons. Smaller companies have high costs, especially small publishers. The cost of paper and other materials, along with labor costs can add up. If they sell to a limited client, they would have to keep raising prices of the books to break even.



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by kidflash2008
 


I'm not familiar with High Times. Drugs? It seems that Paladin Press is not out of business. My mistake. An excerpt from their site:


Circumstances and changing times have caused Paladin to scale back publishing some of the more controversial material it had been known for in the past. After the settlement of the Hit Man lawsuit in 1999 and the passage of legislation making it legally treacherous to distribute information on explosives the company stopped publishing some 80 titles on explosives, demolitions, improvised weaponry, and self-defense. But in 2006, Paladin acquired the rights to reprint 40 books from defunct competitor Loompanics Unlimited, keeping a foothold in the “fringe publishing” world even in these legally cautious times.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by whitewave
 


If one publishes a book on how to kill someone, and that someone claims to have used the book for that purpose, the publisher opens themselves up to all kinds of civil lawsuits. I am not saying Paladin Press did that, but they could be doing the old CYA move.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join