What do you consider freedom of speech?

reply to post by jiggerj


This is how they do it. They go after the people that most people will agree to take away freedom of speech, and then they start taking it away from others and it gets worse and worse over time.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


What is frustrating is that there are people who seem to think that the right to speak means no one is allowed to criticize the content, which is bizarre. Speak all you want but you get to be called a douche if you act like a douche! There is no glory to be had in speaking hatred, no matter your right to do it. Debate me on the content of the speech, not the right to speak it.

At any rate, I gotta go watch my movie for the 115th time and be social. I've said all I need to say on this matter.

other. potato.

I don;t like bike-tards who ride taking up the entire roadway. "That's freedom of speech" I don't beleive in God or organised religion" That's freedom of speech. I detest our Government and it's politicians. That's freedom of speech. Some of the threads on ATS are simply boring as hell. That's freedom of speech. 911 was IMHO and inside job. That's freedom of speech. This website and the things we say to each other is ,freedom of speech.

And when they tell me I can no longer exercise my freedom of speeh, that's when the 2nd Amendment kicks in.

reply to post by RealSpoke


That's why it's the first.

However, If you don't have the guns to back it up. you're S.O.L buddy....

Originally posted by openyourmind1262
I don;t like bike-tards who ride taking up the entire roadway. "That's freedom of speech" I don't beleive in God or organised religion" That's freedom of speech. I detest our Government and it's politicians. That's freedom of speech. Some of the threads on ATS are simply boring as hell. That's freedom of speech. 911 was IMHO and inside job. That's freedom of speech. This website and the things we say to each other is ,freedom of speech.

And when they tell me I can no longer exercise my freedom of speeh, that's when the 2nd Amendment kicks in.

edit on 4-8-2012 by openyourmind1262 because: (no reason given)

Riding your bike down the road Is illegal. Riding down the street on your bike with your boys hangin' outta your shorts... That's freedom of expression!

reply to post by beezzer


Freedom of speech is the right to speak your opinion and then move along. Not to cross the line into harassment.

Freedom of assembly is the freedom to gather and spread your message as a group for as long as you see fit. Not to cross the line into harassment.

Harassment is causing others undue grief.

Protests in the USA are full of harassment on both sides. Neither the protestors nor the passer bys have any sort of respect for one another.

That's pretty much my sentiment towards free speech. Contrary to popular opinion that some people and groups think, free speech is not for them and them only, and absolutely nobody else, free speech is for all citizens of America, and it gives them the right to express that opinion no matter ignorant or unfortunate. It also does not say that you have to be eloquent either.

But it doesn't mean that there can be no repercussions for what you said. There is a thing called responsibility for one's actions, and free speech does not mean you're free from them. You can't yell fire in a theater nor can you incite a riot.

reply to post by beezzer

In the past week I've (we all have) seen the threads on Chick-fil-A, Westboro Baptist, and OWS.

3 quite different forms of expression that where the first 2 can be defined as "free speech" but when you get to the third OWS they say "free speech" meaning throwing rocks,willful, and wanting destruction of private property.

While most OWs did not fall under that form of "freedom of expression" it set the precident of what can go wrong and when it did go wrong it went horribly.

The laws such as keeping people from "freedom of speech" near Government employees is the result they screwed up and they know iit so what was the answer by the morons called politicians make another law making the same thing more illegal.

The problem is as simple as "freedom of speech" too many have different opinions of what the words mean getting impossible to find any 2 that are alike.

For example freedom of speech is saying what is on ones mind in it's simplest form but when emotion gets interjected in to that we end up with the extreme tangent of OWS.

This is what i consider to be freedom of speech posting ones opinion without getting a bottle thrown at them or insulted etc.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Logarock

 

Political gatherings at "churches" being restricted simply becouse of a violation of a tax statute is a law that is unconstitutional.

It is actually not unconstitutional. The 501c3 of which churches most imprudently make a contract with the IRS is a part of contract law, and Constitutionally speaking, all people have the right to contract. Indeed, the real question in regards to churches and the contracts of 501c3's is why do churches seek tax exemptions for a tax they are not even liable for?

The IRS shouldnt be allowed to enter into a contract that puts a sock in the political mouth of any oganization. IRS is saying here that they wont seek tax and will grant standing with conditions that violate the churches rights. This is a RICO violation.

reply to post by neo96


I saw a lot of nasty things being done TO OWS as well. Call it straight. A cop has no right to sucker punch a woman in the face, which is what happened at one protest.

reply to post by AnarchysAngel


That was a two way street because it does take 2 to tango the "protests" of the Teaparty and the Westboro anything of the sort like we saw with OWS occur?

NO,.

reply to post by Logarock


You're missing my point. Why would a church need a "tax exemption" to begin with? Churches are free to nullify their 501c3 status and as far as I am concerned they should.

It is RICO.

reply to post by neo96


It doesn't matter what a protest does, a police officer has a responsibility to society to act like a decent human being. Their conduct is as much to blame as anything else. Don't give me that, "he hit me first" crap.

reply to post by beezzer

I consider freedom of speech the right to tell Hillary Clinton to resign for the good of the country without being given an "Incident Number".
True story.

reply to post by AnarchysAngel


Yeah it matters because far too many people simply do not know how to talk to people or to them all they do is talk over them or down too them and a myriad of other stupidty.

Like evil cops same old story on these boards always trying to dehumanize them so i reitterate IT takes two don't care how much training they will react.

reply to post by neo96


That's why they have riot gear. So they have the clear advantage and will not feel threatened. Occupy scared the government, that's why Occupy went the way it did. The Teaparty wasn't scaring anyone. That's why they weren't herded like animals.

I watched the live feeds. I saw what was going on. Occupy and the Tea Party were treated very differently. The Tea party was, well, a PARTY! It looked like fun. Occupy didn't look fun.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


From what I understand the tax exemption is to keep the churches out of politics. Because let's face it, if they did get up off their butts and voted, considering that 76% plus Americans are Christians, they have a lot of voting power, enough to override the Constitution completely.

reply to post by beezzer


I think freedom of speech can only work well in a society that has a set of moral codes. If people are already brought up to 'love thy neighbour', then they will be able to control themselves to behave in a civilised way.

Unlike our present atheist system where even killing and death are forms of entertainment.

The International Marxists have done their best to discredit Christianity in the Mass Media because its moral codes and Individualism (the Right to Live) directly oppose its own agenda.

And FYI, I am not a "Bible-basher" but a realist.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

From what I understand the tax exemption is to keep the churches out of politics. Because let's face it, if they did get up off their butts and voted, considering that 76% plus Americans are Christians, they have a lot of voting power, enough to override the Constitution completely.

My point, however, is that there is no evidence in the tax code that churches are subject to any applicable revenue law, nor liable for any tax of that code. There is no compulsion by statute, that I know of, for a church to apply for 501c3 status.

Further, Christian churches have a long history of colluding with governments to oppress the people. I would suggest to you that this "tax exemption" and churches application for it is not because of some noble ideal to prevent Christians from "overrid(ing) the Constitution completely", but is a collusion between institutions to maintain a status quo.

reply to post by AnarchysAngel


Really they have riot gear why prey tell do they need riot gear eh?

Because people do not know how to act, they get violent and they do other things that are not "freedom of speech".

Didn't need riot gear with the TPM or Westboro and yet somehow like i said evil polices.

Not buying the poor little innocent victims that so many people made OWS out to be