It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Freedom of Speech, When Does it go To Far?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 04:35 PM
reply to post by filosophia

I do not advocate freedom of speech, I am against freedom of speech in favour of a more tolerant society. I understand however that you have been ideologically conditioned to fight for freedom of speech and support it so i will not attempt to change your mind.

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 04:55 PM

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by zroth

You see the problem i have with people seeking their mind is that sometimes it only serves to offend other people, i also like I said in the OP limits the possibilities of a tolerant society. The only way we can have a tolerant society is to silence the fascists and to do that we cannot have absolute freedom of speech. I understand that is a very unpopular statement but it’s just my opinion. If i had the answerer as to how we shepherd them I would have gone into politics. I don’t have the answers i have just identified the problem.

I appreciate your point of view. The only way we can have a tolerant society is to stop judging everything and accept everything for what it is at that time. If I am a jerk today and a saint tomorrow tolerance and acceptance must be consistent.

The problem is that everyone is brought-up, by the media, to feel special like little kings and queens. This false identity feeds the ego until is runs rampant and goes unaddressed because it is not “PC” to discipline anymore.

If we only look at one side of the coin we will simply shift extremes which is not natural. Nature requires balance. Right now we are out of it.

We should go back to symbols and eliminate the confusing word

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 05:10 PM
reply to post by zroth

I agree with you I think, also i think that its a bit ridiculous that we cant discipline because we’re all trying to be PC. However we do need some level of PC, that should be law and it is this that restricts our freedom of speech.

posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:18 PM
reply to post by kevinunknown

What happened to being able to laugh at ourselves? Scotman, Engishman and Irishman jokes are a good example.

We are NOT living in a tolerant society. We are living in a society which does not believe it is necessary to protect its own culture. Some of our misguided ideas about respecting other peoples' cultures have led us to tolerate forced marriages etc. Cultural norms that the women from those societies hoped to escape from, only to find on their arrival in 'tolerant britain' that their oppression would simply continue.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:49 AM
reply to post by kevinunknown

I usually do not put up a second response but I will to your question. First yes I can go to an airport and talk about bombs, I can go to time square or any place else I can even go and stand out side or off property of any place and protest against them saying what ever I want. I maybe asked to not curse because of young ones but will not be locked up for it, unless there is violence involved. At the air port I am sure I will be questioned to determine my true agenda but then released after being properly searched to ensure the safety of those around me. The only thing that would put me in jail for speech in the USA and is a written law is screaming fire in a movie theater, because such vocals if not true can cause harm to another. As long as my action directly do not cause physical harm to another there is no crime for what I may or may not say. There is a law against slander and that is civil not criminal. So yes we truly have freedom of speech as long as that speech doesn’t insight a riot or lead to violence against another. I my self have spoken out about many controversial things in public and have never been arrested, questioned or ask to leave the area yes. We have the right to protest against anything and everything period.

There is such a thing as perceived violence, and if what is said is perceived to be a real threat than action my be taken. Example I can say I am going to kill (so and so) this is not a crime, but if I make actual plans and my actions are such perceived or I have the actual means to do so, than I can be charged with a crime.

I can also declare that I have killed so many people, does this mean I will be charged with murder, no not at all if there is no proof it is nothing more than a sick minded person looking for attention. And not a crime.

People may not like what a person says, but as and American and prior serviceman I will defend there right to say what ever they like. Weather I agree with them or not. And that is true freedom of speech.

I hope that clears up a few things for you.

As far as addressing your socialist views, again I defend your right to speak about it, but I do not agree with you. Simple put best in the bible, if I feed you today I will have to feed you tomorrow, but if I teach you to fish you can feed yourself. Now I know that is not the exact quotes so don’t beat me up over it, but you get the point. I am for no socialist agenda what so ever. People need to learn how to live within there means period, and we have insurance for the off chance of injury beyond a persons control to cause them loss of income and what not. All forms of government socialism is bad, even social security, you do not have to pay into social security it is voluntary to do so, but it is a type of retirement insurance a poor one at that. A person should invest in a ROTH IRA, for retirement and get out of the socialism program of SS. Unemployment, food stamps and all the rest need to go away, it is a drain on the system. Some will say but we pay for our unemployment benefits, ok yes you pay a small amount with every pay check and your employer pays some too. The rest comes from the tax payers. And if you work for 5 yrs and added up all the money you paid into unemployment, you will have collected every dime of it back with in the first few weeks, do the math and get off your ass and get a job. Can’t afford that 22 bedroom house than downsize, can’t afford to eat lobster every night then try some chicken. Cant afford the 150 dollar cable bill for internet and a million channels then get a roof top antenna and spend more family time instead of playing on the computer or watching one of the 10 TVs you got in the house. Most Americans have no clue what it is to be in hardship. All thanks to socialism there is no more real charity, hope, or trust in this world. Time to get back to basics family, friends and neighbors period are the only ones that should be helping you out, not the government entitlement programs that drain the system and makes us lazy people. And no I am not rich, in fact I am poor but living within my means, I have not worked for 5 years because of injury and my wife is working instead so I am the stay at home dad. We are a family of 5 living in a two bedroom house because that is what we can afford and the house is easy to maintain mortgage and utilities so I still have some extra for my internet. Its all about priorities and most socialist have none except give me give me give me instead of wait let me get a 5 dollar an hour job instead of the million dollar job I once had and so on, because the government will feed me pay my electric and so on.

We need to wake up and smell the coffee the well has run dry and it’s high time we start take-in care of ourselves instead of waiting for the government to hand it to you. A hand out is not a hand up, period.

May God Bless us all and Save us from ourselves

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 10:53 AM
reply to post by kevinunknown

we are legislating to appease minority groups

I don't think freedom of speech can really go too far, after all how can words by themselves truly be all that bad? Unless someone is inciting people to violent action with their words I can't see many situations in which Freedom of Speech should be restricted.

While we must protect the rights of all groups, especially minority groups, we have to walk the thin line between protection and catering to them. I think we can protect rights of one group without other groups having to hand over their own or at least that's what we should be striving for.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 02:18 PM
Just a quick note to the last two posters. Firstly thank you both for posting your views, while we disagree, I did find them interesting and respect your views. I am assuming you are both American, now you will have to excuse my assumption is wrong and the generalisation that follows. In the American political and ideological psyche grate emphasis is placed in liberty above all else, even in some cases security. I live in the UK were things are different, there is legislation that is in place that restricts what i can say in public, therefore this thread was very much wrote from the perspective that I am British. Once again i apologise if my assumption of yourselves is wrong.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 02:25 PM
reply to post by kevinunknown

Yep, I'm American.

The American government is meant to, above all, protect the rights of everyone equally. Particularly minority groups are meant to be protected from the will of the majority otherwise this would be a full Democracy rather than a Democratic Republic.

I've heard some of the horror stories out of the UK police state. What sort of things are you restricted from saying in public? Hate speech, I imagine, which makes sense.

I personally think that we should all have full freedom of speech unless our comments are directly leading to the harm of another person or the infringement of the other individual/group's rights.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 02:31 PM
Interesting thread!

I am also from the U.K and this problem has had me thinking too.

With the risk of sounding ignorant and possibly arrogant too... If I choose to "hate" someone or something, isn't that my right?
Why should I be forced to "like" something that I don't because that is what is socially acceptable?

As long as I don't initiate violence or publically incite physical damage or harm what is the problem? If I were to instigate an incident then by all means lock me up, that is where I step over the line but I don't STRONGLY don't believe I should be forced to accept, agree or even tolerate something because the "moral majority" say that is right.

It is my right to be mean, arrogant, obnoxious, selfish etc etc if I choose to be, THAT is freedom of speech.

Those that offend easily, frankly, need to grow a thicker skin.

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 05:14 PM

Originally posted by darkelf
If I say the Bible condems homosexuality, that is freedom of speech. If I say all homosexuals should be shot, that is hate speech. True tolerance is allowing freedom of speech thay may offend but not harm you. Saying atheist, Christians, or politicians are idiots is an opinion that should be tolerated no matter if it offends you. Calling for harm to them should never be tolerated.

I do agree with this, completely. By the way, your avatar looks like MJ in the thriller video.

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:04 AM
I feel there needs to be a clear line drawn in the sand when it comes to freedom of speech and when it steps over that line into promoting terrorist and criminal propaganda

In Australia we have journalists who have debased themselves into becoming pornographic S&M servants of the politicians and the political agenda. They latch onto all the lies, rubbish and drivel from these creatures and therefore brainwash the majority into believing complete nonsense and self-harm

One example is when John Howard and other terrorist traitors used a single incident to disarm Australia and legislate against the right to bear arms. Politics and opinions on gun ownership aside, Australia cant forever rely on the USA to protect her interests, and this heinous act has left Australia and Australians at the mercy of foreign powers such as China, Muslim Indonesia and others, not even taking into account the most treasonous and vile politicians we have on our own soil

In this example the media latched onto the hysteria and chose to become party to these acts of treason and terrorism, serious words but they are true in the historical context of gun control being a prelude to heinous acts of mass murder against the population

This sort of behaviour and promoting other propaganda in a time when the stakes are so high is utterly and completely unnacceptable, and I fully support the common law punishment of the death penalty for those who are so contemptible and vile that they choose to commit acts of treason and terror against those they are supposed to be working for.

Corruption is nothing new and its high time the community in all western countries and elsewhere take a stand for the most basic freedoms and say enough is enough, will millions have to die and will history have to repeat itself before we stamp out propaganda and harmful lies?

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:50 AM
How is society tolerant if you want to prevent people from saying things you cannot tolerate? Even things you disagree, or despise, you must allow, for that is true tolerance.

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:48 AM
There is not such thing as Freedom of speech.You have freedom to speak their mind,but not yours.

I don't understand why certain groups need special treatment.
This is what i'm talking about:
I have a few homosexual friends(i'm straight) that i respect their choise and i have no problem hang around with them.For a reason ,not yet clear to me ,some of them want to turn me and always critisize my choise in men or always try to fix me with a girl,which is annoying.When i tell them that,they get mad they call me narrow-minded and racist.
I have heard not a few time hate speeches from homosexuals against straight people with no consequences for them.
So freedom of speech applys to them but not for me?
If i said sth against a homosexual i will automatically be labeled as a racist/hater,but not them,they are just free spirits trying to defend themselves.
Do i need a special law to protect me?

Another example:
In many european countries you can get arrested if you deny or minimise the holocaust.And i'm not talking about extreme groups with violent intentions,i'm talking about everyday people who might have doubts.You can't even debate your thoughts.

Where is the freedom of speech in that laws?

Yes the ones who discriminate or act violently should be punished,but this must work both ways.This minority groups must understand that they are not anything better than the rest of the world and shouldn't crave for special treatment.And if they don't want discrimination should stop provoking and act like the victims and accept the choises they make,before they ask for the rest of the world to accept it for them.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in