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 something wicked
So do something about it, get educated, become a lawyer and look to put a precedent in place to say why you should be able to abuse people with no expectation that your words would have any consequence or shut up. Seems you have two options really doesn't it?
Originally posted by something wicked
Strange, do you notice the very site you are making your comments on here has Ts and Cs
Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by something wicked
I've been against racism for many years and actively protested against the Klan to the point of receiving death threats, so no this isn't about "continuity".
I abhor racism but we won't change anyone's mind or heart by throwing them in jail - an act that will probably just reinforce their feelings of hatred.
We can't end racism by throwing people in jail.
I also think everyone is entitled to their views regardless of how wildly unpopular they may be.
I should think their public humiliation for what they said should be punishment enough.
Hate crimes is the most ludicrous (and insidious) idea to come to along in a long, long time.edit on 28-3-2012 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by neformore
I think that anyone who is stupid enough to make racially motivated abohrrent comments on a public forum deserves everything they get.
Freedom of speech is not freedom to hate.
Originally posted by neformore
Freedom of speech is not freedom to hate.
Originally posted by Cythraul
Originally posted by something wicked
So do something about it, get educated, become a lawyer and look to put a precedent in place to say why you should be able to abuse people with no expectation that your words would have any consequence or shut up. Seems you have two options really doesn't it?
The burden should not be on me, in a free society, to prove that everyone has the right to say and think what they want. "Or shut up" huh? Seems like something an agent of Totalitarianism would say. And no, in a free country those are not the only two options. It's a shame that fascists like you don't get that.
Originally posted by something wicked
Strange, do you notice the very site you are making your comments on here has Ts and Cs
ATS is a private company and therefore has the freedom to conduct itself in any way it chooses. The government, however - of any free country, is not!
Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
And you went to school where and read the Constitution how many times?
Originally posted by neformore
The US Constiution is irrelevant to this issue, as the incident that sparked the twitter comment happened in England, was perpertrated by an English man and therefore falls under the juristiction of English Laws as found in this link
Originally posted by something wicked
Oh, you seem offended? See how easy it is and yet I used none of the offensive terms that this thread actually relates to. Perhaps you should exercise your right not to be offended a little more. That was the whole point of my post and frankly you have shown how it's easy when you are not the one in the target, even for nothing more than pushing a literal, liberal elite agenda.
Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by Cythraul
Well, lets compromise and say British
Originally posted by Cythraul
Originally posted by something wicked
Oh, you seem offended? See how easy it is and yet I used none of the offensive terms that this thread actually relates to. Perhaps you should exercise your right not to be offended a little more. That was the whole point of my post and frankly you have shown how it's easy when you are not the one in the target, even for nothing more than pushing a literal, liberal elite agenda.
I'm not offended - frustrated with the fascist faction of ATS sometimes, yes, but not offended. But let's say I am - that's fine because it's irrelevant. See, it shouldn't concern the State when someone gets offended. More power to those who manage not to be offended, but the burden should be on them to deal with verbal comments how they see fit, NOT on the issuer of the comments to self-censor. If the offended decides to retaliate physically, fair enough, but they have then brought the dispute into the realms of law - something which words and thoughts alone should never do - and will have to accept the consequences of their actions.