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.

 

At the UN, the Obama administration backs limits on free speech.

page: 2
39
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Then dont let him take it away from you. Its your choice.
If you (the actual authority) doesnt accept it, he can do nothing about it.

Thats how their magic works, and it can be used against them.




posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   
I don't like him anymore.

Makes me wnder if he is really more of a muslim than he admits, too.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Gotta be stopped before it starts what does it take for people to unite and yell out we hired you we fire you.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   
There are already Limits on Free Speech. And incitement is one of them.



The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action.


I could be missing something, but I don't see anything new here. Can someone enlighten me?



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Can't speak for anyone else, but the part that bothers me most is this part from the source in the OP:


The new resolution, championed by the Obama administration, has a number of disturbing elements. It emphasizes that "the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . ." which include taking action against anything meeting the description of "negative racial and religious stereotyping."

...

Pakistan's Ambassador Zamir Akram, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, made it clear that they understand the resolution and its protection against religious stereotyping as allowing free speech to be trumped by anything that defames or negatively stereotypes religion. The idea of protecting the human rights "of religions" instead of individuals is a favorite of those countries that do not protect free speech and which use religion--as defined by government--to curtail it.


If someone wants to say that a particular religion, or every religion, is a bunch of hogwash they shouldn't have any action taken against them for saying so.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   
This has been in the news recently. As in, the UN limit on free speech itself. I guess Obama's support of it is new?

Anyways, it's not simply guarding against hate speech or speech that could possibly invoke violence.

What this is, is essentially a rule to not say anything bad about religion. It's forcing us to be politically correct. As much as I'd love to have people stop saying ridiculous things about Christianity, I'd never want to force anyone through the UN to stop.

But this is apparently what is attempting to be done, however with a focus on Islam for protection.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



I could be missing something, but I don't see anything new here. Can someone enlighten me?


Yes, it goes way beyond simply protecting against speech that incites 'violence or illegal action.'

It's basically trying to stop criticism of religion, with a focus on Islam.

I never, ever agree with Christopher Hitchens but I do believe he's right in this case. Not sure if what he was referring to is the same as what Obama is involved in but it sounds similar. Like I said above, these types of resolutions have been in the works for a while so I don't know if this thread is dealing with something new or the same but it's too similar not to share the below:




posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
There are already Limits on Free Speech. And incitement is one of them.



The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action.


I could be missing something, but I don't see anything new here. Can someone enlighten me?


Yes, once again in their rush to defend obama against any and all criticisms, some are missing the slippery slope of how easy it will be to expand the list of proscribed speech and thoughts to include things that today you and anyone else might consider acceptable. The definitions of "hate speech" are purposely not clearly defined, leaving a lot of room for the government to decide what it will call illegal in the future.

For example, let's a say a conservative version of obama
comes to power along with Republican majorities in congress. You want to protest, but now they define your protests as "statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action" against conservatives and round you up.

Sitting in your camp, you'll no doubt be bitterly thinking, "Oh, that's what people like me meant ..."



[edit on 10/6/2009 by centurion1211]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
Awesome. I love it when our political leaders and UN negotiators bow down to the whim of other countries regardless of what it costs us. Especially when those whims are based on some nutjob's determination that anything unfavorable said about their flavor of religion is discrimination. After all, it's common knowledge that you can't disagree with a religion or religious person without discriminating against them.


Suppose this means I better get it all out now before I get turned in to the speech police...



The new resolution, championed by the Obama administration, has a number of disturbing elements. It emphasizes that "the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . ." which include taking action against anything meeting the description of "negative racial and religious stereotyping." It also purports to "recognize . . . the moral and social responsibilities of the media" and supports "the media's elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct" in relation to "combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance."


Im turning you into the "read the article before you speak about it" police.

What racial and religious slurs were you going to make anyway? You'll have to answer that in PM since its against the ATS TOS to answer it here. Better add ATS to the list of free speech limiting entities.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   
You didn't really think that those loans from China would be without a catch, now did you?



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by calcoastseeker
 


While the case below is not specifically linked to this usage of Freedom of Speech, I see where it can intersect with it later when our own Government tries to utilize secret evidence against us by denying our Constitutional Rights and attempting to list a lack of Freedom of Speech as the reasoning behind our convictions.

No Death Penalty For U.S. Embassy Bomb Suspect

I do not trust a Government that tries to strip us of our protected rights in any way whatsoever, and I did not care for Bush in the previous Administration and Obama is just proving to everyone that he is the same ignorant man as the last one to everyone who thought he was going to be a change and hope for our future.

I can certainly understand when it becomes an issues of inciting violence and or provoking people into hurtful actions, but this is a controversial topic because of the fact that the black and white lines can be grayed by an Administration to later set a precedent towards further weakening our rights because when something is protected so strongly it is like weakening a strong damn by chipping away at one point of support and later wondering why the whole thing collapsed to begin with, it just does not support a strong enough case of deniability because it takes decades for these types of undermining actions to be seen and as our citizens are raised the laws are changed faster than their Pampers and people end up becoming more and more ignorant to the rule of law that can protect them and as well grow cold and self-centered and ignore precedents set prior to the ones they should have been paying attention to in the beginning.

U.N. Human Rights Watch 2009 Report

Each successive generation is just a little more ignorant and just a little less intelligent due to history books being changed, rules of law adapting to the hostile environment of Government, and the people who sit wondering why it is that the one day something is fine and the next it is suddenly illegal via a means of the change of one or two words, which corrupt the meaning of the original intent and context. By these laws changing almost faster than the average citizens can keep up with, or where they need a legal team like O.J. Simpson to interpret it for them, while we as citizens do not have billions to get away with murder, it is surprising that every one of us is not incarcerated already.

[edit on 6-10-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Go ahead. I read it twice. Once before I posted originally, and again before I made my last post in order to find the section I wanted to quote which ironically you just quoted at me.

Did you miss the part on page two where it says:


Pakistan's Ambassador Zamir Akram, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, made it clear that they understand the resolution and its protection against religious stereotyping as allowing free speech to be trumped by anything that defames or negatively stereotypes religion. The idea of protecting the human rights "of religions" instead of individuals is a favorite of those countries that do not protect free speech and which use religion--as defined by government--to curtail it.


Which I also just quoted a few posts up by the way. Anything that defames or negatively stereotypes religion. So if I said that the Islamic extremists are a bunch of loons who have a warped view of religion and their version is false and due in part to their insane religious beliefs they're trying to force everyone else to say nothing bad about it, I'd be in violation of this resolution. Oops...



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   
I just wanted to throw my two cents into this because I really don't see why others don't just do this...

It was in fact against the constitution in which it was "decided" that incitement was okay to abolish from free speech. Therefore you should be within your rights to not recognize it right?

Either way, these new things trying to get passed are to make sure that if TSHTF, or any other governmental illegal action in general, you can't do anything about it without breaking those laws...



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Why are people complaining about Obama? Please remember he said he was about "change" and you put him in office. However, you failed to ask the questions:


  1. What "change" was he talking about?
  2. When was the "change" to take effect?
  3. Where was the "change" to be made?
  4. Who was making the "change"?
  5. How was the "change" to occur?
  6. Why there was a need for the "change"?


You did not ask and he did not say. So you voted him into office and now wonder...change??? You made your bed with Obama now sleep in it and accept the "change".

Pandering is the mans trade, he told you what you wanted to hear and you bought it hook, line and sinker. Not like it would have made any difference, the CFR and Tri-lateral Commission always get their candidate since they back both sides.

There was another person in history that got into office by pandering "change". There were lots of changes, so much so that Europe laid in ruins with close to 30 million dead. Not saying that there is any similarities but then again...change????



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Ahh the standard...
about as credible as The Onion and as balanced as Rush Limbaugh.

next.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by wayno
The part that is really absurd is where it says:

which include taking action against anything meeting the description of "negative racial and religious stereotyping."


I understand the part about racial slurs. A person's race in an innate thing. You can neither choose it nor change it and as such should not be subject to negative stereotyping.


Actually race is man-made too. Of course there are physical characteristics that we deem as "race" but those are only skin deep. Racism and race are social constructs designed to divide people, just like religion, politics, etc.

Genetically speaking race does not exist.

As for the OP all I have to say is I hope we don't start actually listening to the UN or else our Constitution will be weakened even more then it already is.

[edit on 6-10-2009 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


i agree with a limit on free speech- such as walking into a crowded theater and screaming "fire"- ok that is wrong to do
however if i want to stand out in the street and invoke violence and denounce my gov't to cause a revolution THAT is my RIGHT!
isn't that how we got our (once great) country? that is what the forefathers did and that is why it is the 1st amendment.
and when that doesn't work that is why we have the 2nd amendment.
and who the f is the UN to tell american citizens what their rights are?
they can go f themsleves too- and if they show up the pretty sky blue helmets make great targets
we all know they are trying to censor the internet since they can't control it and people can find things that is not propaganda msm/gov't controlled.
obama and his cronies are digging their own graves i believe.
i know people who were diehard obama supporters and after just the few months he has been in office they regret voting for him.
they wanted change now you are getting it- which is about the only thing he hasn't lied about because he never said good change or bad change- just change
welcome to the nwo



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Ahh the standard...
about as credible as The Onion and as balanced as Rush Limbaugh.

next.


Ah, then you must prefer to be indoctrinated by our state controlled media - cnn, msnbc, ny times, la times, washington post, etc.

Can you add anything beyond a "shoot the messenger" post?



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   
This more than just an attack on free speech, it is an attack on non-Muslim governments. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

The Muslims put their goal very bluntly
The laws of your Republic do not conform to the laws of the Koran and must not be imposed on Muslims who can only be governed by Sharia Law. We therefore intend to work on seizing this power which is owed us.[/b



"Mr.Wilder, [a Netherlands legislator] will be prosecuted in the Netherlands for exercising his freedom of speech with film and public comments unfavorable to Islam.

Additionally, the state of Jordan had previously announced that it would prosecute Mr. Wilder for
“blasphemy and contempt” of Muslims, the penalty for which (in Shari’a Law) can be extreme (ie: death)."
Link

Mr. Wilder’s film “Fitna”, , is mainly quotes direct from the Koran that illustrate the call for violence, and intolerance. At the time of its released in March of 2008, it raised little Muslim reaction. Why should it since it was just quotes from their holy book.

This is part of Mr. Geert Wilder's speech to Holland's Parliament






I acknowledge that there are people who call themselves Muslims and who respect our laws. My party, the Freedom Party, has nothing against such people, of course. However, the Koran does have something against them. For it is stated in the Koran in Sura 2, verse 85, that those believers who do not believe in everything the Koran states will be humiliated and receive the severest punishment; which means that they will roast in Hell. In other words, people who call themselves Muslims but who do not believe, for example, in Sura 9, verse 30, which states that Jews and Christians must be fought, or, for example, in Sura 5, verse 38, which states that the hand of a thief must be cut off, such people will be humiliated and roast in Hell. Note that it is not me who is making this up. All this can be found in the Koran. The Koran also states that Muslims who believe in only part of the Koran are in fact apostates, and we know what has to happen to apostates. They have to be killed...

.... there is no such thing as "moderate Islam".... As Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan said the other day, and I quote, "There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that's it".... Islam is in pursuit of dominance. It wishes to exact its imperialist agenda by force on a worldwide scale....


...Islam is also bent on installing a totally different form of law and order, namely Sharia law. This makes Islam, apart from a religion for hundreds of millions of Muslims also, and in particular, a political ideology (with political/constitutional/Islamic basic values, etc). Islam is an ideology without any respect for others; not for Christians, not for Jews, not for non-believers and not for apostates. Islam aims to dominate, subject, kill and wage war....

Very many Dutch citizens, Madam Speaker, experience the presence of Islam around them. And I can report that they have had enough of burkas, headscarves, the ritual slaughter of animals, so-called honour revenge, blaring minarets, female circumcision, hymen restoration operations, abuse of homosexuals, Turkish and Arabic on the buses and trains as well as on town hall leaflets, halal meat at grocery shops and department stores, Sharia exams, the Finance Minister's Sharia mortgages, and the enormous overrepresentation of Muslims in the area of crime, including Moroccan street terrorists....
Source





Here are some excerpts from an interview to Mohamed Sabaoui at the Universite de Lille, France (h/t: Barbara):

Our peaceful invasion on the European stage has not yet reached its objective. We intend to act in all countries simultaneously. Since you are giving us more and more space, we would be stupid not to take advantage. We will be your Trojan Horse. You have become hostages to those human rights to which you claim to adhere. Thus, for instance, if you were to talk to me in Algeria or Saudi Arabia in the same manner as I am talking to you now, you would be, in the best case scenario, arrested on the spot.

You, French people, are unable to muster respect from our youngsters. Why would they respect a country that capitulates to them? One only respects what one fears. When we seize power, you won’t see a single foreigner burn a car or vandalize a store. Arabs know that the inevitable punishment of a thief, in our way of thinking, is the amputation of one hand.

The laws of your Republic do not conform to the laws of the Koran and must not be imposed on Muslims who can only be governed by Sharia Law. We therefore intend to work on seizing this power which is owed us. We will start by Roubaix [a French city], which is at present a Muslim city at more than 60%. At the next municipal elections, we will mobilize our ranks and the next mayor will be a Muslim. Following negotiations with the State and the Region, we will declare Roubaix an independent Muslim enclave, and we will impose Sharia Law (God’s Law) to the entire population. The Christian minority will have the status of Dhimmis. It will be a separate class which would be able to re-negotiate its freedoms and rights by way of a special tax. Moreover, we will do what is needed to bring them by persuasion into our fold. Tens of thousands of French men and women have already embraced Islam of their own will; so why not the Christians of Roubaix? At the present time at the University of Lille, we are organizing Faith Brigades whose task is to “convert” the recalcitrant Christians or Jews of Roubaix and bring them into our religion, because that is what God wants! If we are the strongest, it is because God has willed it. We are not handicapped by the Christian obligation of aiding the orphan, the weak or the disabled. We can and must, to the contrary, crush them if they constitute an obstacle, especially if they are infidels.

It was K.R. Popper, in “The Open Society and its Enemies”, that first brought attention to the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. therightjournal.com...


[edit on 6-10-2009 by crimvelvet]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   
I think its about time to inpeach OBAMA, if he doesn't like free speech he needs to get the hell out of our country thats why we have the consitution to protect the rights of the people of the United States, if he doesn't like it oh well he needs to step down as president, from what I have seen from this joker so fair he is not worthy of being our president, next it will be he wants to limit ever thing else in the consitition I can't believe I voted for this terrorist.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   
IIRC the US left the Human Rights Council. The HRC is just a huge bashfest against the US anyhow. Countries like the Sudan are on it and they team up with other anti-US nations to just spew hatred towards the West. The Human Rights Council is a joke and that's why the US left it in the first place. It's surprising and I'm not entirely sure I believe the US has come back to it. In either case I wouldn't worry about any policy coming out of here actually affecting the US.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join