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 MaxNormal
Your individual rights are never above the rights of the whole. You do not have the right to do anything if it violates the rights of the group/whole/county/state/country.
Originally posted by Ex_CT2
I don't immediately perceive where the Ninth Amendment is applicable to individual rights, as opposed to the rights of the people collectively.
To paraphrase, it merely says, "The list of rights enumerated earlier was not all-inclusive. That list does not imply that those are the only rights of the people; and that list may not be used for the purpose of limiting rights that may be later asserted."
Perhaps if the paper in question were presented to ATS, then we could discuss whether the ideas seem realistic....
Originally posted by MaxNormal
Your individual rights are never above the rights of the whole. You do not have the right to do anything if it violates the rights of the group/whole/county/state/country.
Originally posted by MaxNormal
Your individual rights are never above the rights of the whole. You do not have the right to do anything if it violates the rights of the group/whole/county/state/country.
Hence why hate speech and racism should be banned because hate speech infringes upon the rights of another.
I don't immediately perceive where the Ninth Amendment is applicable to individual rights, as opposed to the rights of the people collectively.
Originally posted by Judge_Holden
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
Hence why hate speech and racism should be banned because hate speech infringes upon the rights of another.
Explain to me how hate speech infringes upon the rights of others? Hate speech is just that: hateful speech. It does not harm anyone physically, will not harm anyone emotionally upon refusing to hear such speech, and does not affect their overall welfare as an individual capable of pursuing their own self-interests. While I will agree with the argument that hate-speech is collectivist, deplorable, and downright shameful, banning any form of speech is unconstitutional and inherently unjust.
Racism, as terrible as it is, cannot possibly be banned. You cannot force an individual's thoughts to be pure or acceptable. Until people start to realize that individuals are autonomous beings separate in their uniqueness and capability, racism will always persist.
Hate leads towards riling people up with lead to insults which leads to acts of physical violence upon another which is how it infringes upon another.