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.
Originally posted by whatukno
Thanks to this. If you want freedom of speech it has to apply to everyone, including moronic hate filled [snip] holes.
Originally posted by whatukno
It includes everything. The news for instance. If there was no freedom of speech in this country there would be no news. Or if there was it would be state sponsored.
Originally posted by whatukno
But it exists. You can find it. But the point of this is that there is freedom of speech and it exists, and that is why neo nazi dickheads are able to march freely.
Originally posted by whatukno
The first amendment covers this hate speech. It covers everyone's speech.
Originally posted by whatukno
Every idiotic thing that people want to say is allowed in this country.
Originally posted by whatukno
You think this is an automatic right? Where does it say that it's an automatic right? It doesn't you have to fight for it, which means court cases.
Originally posted by whatukno
Freedom isn't free and you have to protect your own constitutional rights cause no one else is going to do it for you.
How are these guys able to legally do this?
Originally posted by whatukno
Every idiotic thing that people want to say is allowed in this country.
Legally, yes (thusfar it is). In reality, however, people are pressured in various ways to shut up or they're given a show-trial with phoney charges.
If speaking your mind can get you into court, there is no free speech.
Actually, the government is supposed to...
Originally posted by whatukno
Legally, yes (thusfar it is). In reality, however, people are pressured in various ways to shut up or they're given a show-trial with phoney charges.
Prove it with examples or it doesn't happen. Don't feed me your skewed idea of what free speech is being oppressed and not give adequate examples.
Originally posted by whatukno
Yes there is free speech, fact is reporters are willing to go to jail to protect sources for that free speech.
Originally posted by whatukno
Why? Where is it in the constitution that they are obligated to fight for your right to free speech? No, the fact remeins that you must fight for your rights or you don't have them.
Take the Zündel case, for example. Zündel was detained by U.S. local police and deported to Canada, where he was detained for two years on a Security Certificate for being a foreign national alleged to be a threat to national security pending a court decision on the validity of the certificate. Once the certificate was upheld and Zündel was determined to be a national security risk he was deported to Germany and tried in the state court of Mannheim on outstanding charges of incitement for Holocaust denial dating from the early 1990s. On February 15, 2007, he was convicted and sentenced to the maximum term of five years in prison.
There is a list of topics and viewpoints journalists are not allowed to address in any favorable way. In fact, during the war in Iraq one could see that criticism of that war got on that list and several journalists lost their jobs because they dared to be too critical.
If you can't do something without risking a fine or a court sentence, you can't say you're really free to do it. That's like saying you're free to drive 150 km an hour in France because the French court will hear you if they catch you driving that fast (even though there's no chance in **** you can win, unless under very special circumstances).
Originally posted by whatukno
You answered your own question with this guy right here. I'm not going to shed a tear for some douchebag that is wanted in another country.
Originally posted by whatukno
There is a list of topics and viewpoints journalists are not allowed to address in any favorable way. In fact, during the war in Iraq one could see that criticism of that war got on that list and several journalists lost their jobs because they dared to be too critical.
Again Wrong. There is nothing that is off limits. Just people's fear of something being too taboo.
Originally posted by whatukno
Don't give me that, your first example turned out to be someone that was wanted on a crime in an extradition treaty country.
Wanted for a thought crime by means of a website hosted in the US. Don't you see how big a precedent this is and how this is in total violation of the 1st ammendment?
Originally posted by whatukno
Your "the Gandhi of the right" was in the US illegally, he was deported to Canada cause his Visa waver expired. Had nothing to do with his political views.
Originally posted by whatukno
As far as Peter Arnett goes, a private company can fire you for whatever reason they feel. A private company is not the US if they don't like what you are saying they can fire you for it, especially if your a reporter.
Originally posted by whatukno
I am not going to claim to know Germany's laws. But the guy was deported from the US for an expired Visa waver.
Originally posted by whatukno
But Visa laws aren't about freedom of speech it's about kicking out someone who is here illegally. I fail to see the free speech connection.
Originally posted by whatukno
None of this has to do with free speech. It's just a rant on immigration law. There are a lot of people that are deported for expired visas. Doesn't mean it's a political action against their freedom of speech.
If you are unwilling to acknowledge the fact that dissidents are imprisoned or forced out of the country on false pretense or that the media is controlled by proxy in spite of the clear indications thereof, I see no more point in continuing this debate.
Originally posted by whatukno
Thank you, because this is a thread about free speech and not imagined attacks against people politically. A political attack is not an attack against someones right to free speech. Political attacks happen all the time.