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.

 

You All Want Freedom Of Speech? Then Defend It!

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
In response to David Letterman's comments this past week and the public backlash he's received, I have come to a conclusion.

Nobody wants freedom of speech anymore, we only want freedom to be politcally correct. We've allowed our moral values to dictate what is ok for a person to say, and what is not ok for a person to say.

What kind of ridiculous notion is this? Since when did the constitution include, you have the right to say whatever you want, so long as you aren't hurting anybody's feelings?

Really, you are all HELPING the government and the NWO remove your rights and destroy your constitution, because you put these moral blockades up and around certain topics, and prevent people from talking about them.

You're precious USA is being destroyed in front of your own eyes, and perhaps it's most important and respected value is being dropped at the dime of a hat, simply to fight with the other isle over what is good and what is bad.

The FCC do it cosntantly on TV, and on the Radio, and now apparently we have the sensor comedy as well. I may not respect or approve of what everybody says to me on this forum, or in life in general.

But it is my responsiblity and yours, to defend their right to say it, and defend it with everything you have. Because at the end of the day America, all you have is your constitution, and if it goes away, it's because the masses have refused to take it back.

You want freedom of speech, then Defend it!

~Keeper




posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Was Letterman censored by the Government for his Palin comments? Did he recieve a fine for breaking any laws? His right to free speech was not infringed. He just apologized for his crude(however funny) remarks about Palins fourteen year old daughter. Taking offense and getting an apology is far removed from censure.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Amen to you. Star and Flag.

This country has gotten to a point where as long as we can scream about free speech, we are okay with it being dispelled.

People want to get all upset about Letterman talking about Palin's daughter, yet no one had an issue with it when Palin used her daughter as a political shill to get votes. That was perfectly fine. Just don't speak anything negative about her.

The truth is, you can't be for free speech, unless it is free speech for everyone, on every topic. And that has long since passed. It is evident on this board as much as anywhere.

Someone disagrees with you? They are wrong, an idiot, a disinfo agent, etc. Someone has a thought that you think is out there? Attack em as hard as you can.

People need to look beyond the surface. Whining about free speech means nothing, if in your next breath you attack someone else's right to it.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


Well said my friend.

It is true, most people who cry and whine about their speech being sensored or not "approved" for use, are usually the ones who cry fowl when their precious moral structure is broken by meaningless words.

~Keeper



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
I refused to comment in that thread as it was disgusting to me to bash free speech.It was a tasteless joke...which I love.
Its amazing that people want to control what others say instead of just walking away and not looking.
I hope this thread goes far for you.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Let's take this thread and make it about the supressino of free speech. About that double standard that exists between lawful freedoms and moral freedoms imposed by the general public.

At what point did this country become so politically correct? Where is the line, there obviously is one.

I dont' want this to turn into a screaming match between the left and the right over what freedom of speech is. I want it to be a constructive discussion about how we've come to where we are now, and how is our duty and to defend this precious gift given to all Americans and the world.

~Keeper



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   
since when has david letterman ever been funny.

gotta admit... joking about a 14 year old being raped isnt funny (unless its a dead baby joke) and you know damned well how mad you would be if someone said that about your daughter.... no matter how much a ho she is



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by mahtoosacks
since when has david letterman ever been funny.

gotta admit... joking about a 14 year old being raped isnt funny (unless its a dead baby joke) and you know damned well how mad you would be if someone said that about your daughter.... no matter how much a ho she is


I never heard him say anything about anyone being raped. As far as I'm concerned, that is sensationalism at it's finest.

And you seem to be missing the point. It doesn't matter whether or not he's funny, doesn't matter what he said. He has every right to say whatever he wants.

Being a TV figure, you have the right to turn the channel, or turn it off all together. So exercise your power, instead of trying to rolling up the constitution and smoking it.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Criticising someone for what they choose to say is very different to wanting a law that will make it illegal to say it.

I'm against abortion, yet I'll fight to keep it a legal option for those who choose it.

I'm against porn, yet I'd fight to keep porn as legal as it is now.

I'm against making joking on public radio that an innocent 14 y o girl was having sex with a football player at the match.
That doesn't mean I want the law involved.
It just means Letterman is an obnoxious, perverted creep who I would never listen to.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa
Criticising someone for what they choose to say is very different to wanting a law that will make it illegal to say it.

I'm against abortion, yet I'll fight to keep it a legal option for those who choose it.

I'm against porn, yet I'd fight to keep porn as legal as it is now.

I'm against making joking on public radio that an innocent 14 y o girl was having sex with a football player at the match.
That doesn't mean I want the law involved.
It just means Letterman is an obnoxious, perverted creep who I would never listen to.


I am on board with what you are saying, but I have to follow up with a question:

Why is it okay for a lady to bring her daughter into the political limelight as a way to make herself look more family oriented and caring, thus trying to buy more votes, but it is not okay to say ANYTHING negative about that person that is being used?



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Despite maintaining his usual tone of playful sarcasm as he discussed his flap with Palin, Letterman did respond seriously to the charge that he had made a rape joke about a 14-year-old girl: "These are not jokes made about her 14-year-old daughter. I would never, never make jokes about raping or having sex of any description with a 14-year-old girl," he said. Letterman insisted the jokes were intended to be about Bristol, who is 18-years-old. "Am I guilty of poor taste? Yes. Did I suggest that it was OK for her 14-year-old daughter to be having promiscuous sex? No."

www.huffingtonpost.com...

was where i got that....

and no this isnt a freedom of speech issue.

this is he made some bad jokes about someones daughter and the parents are pissed....

not the same thing.


edit: sex with minors is called rape by the way....

[edit on 6/11/2009 by mahtoosacks]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by mahtoosacks
 


It is a freedom of speech issue, because people are up in arms about what he said. They are ANGRY at something he SAID.

Freedom of speech.

~Keeper



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by mahtoosacks

Despite maintaining his usual tone of playful sarcasm as he discussed his flap with Palin, Letterman did respond seriously to the charge that he had made a rape joke about a 14-year-old girl: "These are not jokes made about her 14-year-old daughter. I would never, never make jokes about raping or having sex of any description with a 14-year-old girl," he said. Letterman insisted the jokes were intended to be about Bristol, who is 18-years-old. "Am I guilty of poor taste? Yes. Did I suggest that it was OK for her 14-year-old daughter to be having promiscuous sex? No."

www.huffingtonpost.com...

was where i got that....

and no this isnt a freedom of speech issue.

this is he made some bad jokes about someones daughter and the parents are pissed....

not the same thing.


Again, I think you are missing the point of this thread. No one is suggesting that legal action be taken. However, there are many people demanding that Letterman be taken off of the air.

Free speech starts with the individual, not the government. If you attack someone else's free speech, you open the door for laws against it.


It's another example of creating a problem that the population will look at and beg to give up their right to "correct".



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I completely agree. PC is getting way out of hand and I'm tired of it. I do defend my free speech because I pretty much say what's on my mind and i always tell it like i see it. People whine or try to lecture me about watching what i say, but then I tell them what they can do to themselves. Everyone that knows me expects this from me and I don't care how many people say they have been offended by me, i know they respect me. People want to live in this happy go lucky world where everything runs like a well oiled machine with no problems. But those people are either stupid or just have wishful thinking because it is not possible to make everyone think and say the right things to suit everybody without drugs or mind control being done.

You cannot make everybody happy, somebody is going to get mad or offended over something. People get offended by people of a different color, should those people have to chain their skin color or get incinerated just to make one group happy? People get offended by everything, if you try to make everyone happy, you will end up hanging yourself because you will fail at it miserably. People should be able to say anything they want and people should be grown ups and get over it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying people shouldn't just take a verbal attack, but that's what fighting is for.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by mahtoosacks



edit: sex with minors is called rape by the way....

[edit on 6/11/2009 by mahtoosacks]


Again, sensationalism.

Sex with a minor is statutory rape. Do you know what statutory is?

Flat out saying he was talking about RAPING someone implies forceful sex against ones will. Not the same thing.

Not that this is even the issue at hand here, just thought I'd try and clear up some of the sensationalistic rhetorical propaganda.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
*SNIP*

See, you have every right to say what you want(even though it doesnt really make sense). And now I will do what I have the right to do(and what you have the right to do if you disagree with someone's words)---IGNORE YOU.

I'm not going to tell you not to say idiotic things. I'm not going to lecture you on it. I'm going to ignore it.

[edit on 11/6/2009 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
so you are condoning statutory rape cus it doesnt fit your definition of sadistic enough?

THATS sensationalism......


you still havent said whether or not you would be angry if someone called your daughter a ho on national tv or not yet..



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by mahtoosacks
 


Why would I get mad? It's not directed at me, it's directed to my daughter. And I've raised her to be intelligent enough to know that TV is meaningless.

She would not give a damn, so why would I?

~Keeper



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


youve got to be kidding....

if there isnt any legal action, there arent any laws stopping him, then how is this an infringement of rights???

a lot of people are mad over it... im not, but this not the point. the consumer (yes you are a consumer even while watching tv as you are consuming their ads to pay them) has a right to say whether or not they want to view something.

its not a law that he has to go, its a consumer demand...


i can be angry at anything anyone says, doesnt mean im infringing on rights... this whole thread and the story and everything is pointless waste of time. there is no conspiracy. just an idiot with bad sense of humor who will get the boot cus he sucks...

[edit on 6/11/2009 by mahtoosacks]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join