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.

 

What do you consider freedom of speech?

page: 8
18
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
What a great thread with the best timing!

I'd say all laws that infringe on expression are out of line and dangerous by their very nature. If the expression is objectionable, as I find much to be, then challenging it where it's found and countering in any number of ways is the right way. Passing laws is the tyrants way.

(tosses in the two cents for luck)


I'll go out on a limb here and say that what's more dangerous than the "laws" abridging free speech is the ignorance that most people are in of just who and what is obligated to obey corporate bylaws (which is what these statutory "laws" amount to). The competent and sane are not beholden to the creations of man.

But then again, "danger" implies that something "bad" MIGHT happen. In my fate-driven worldview, there is no such chance. Not only is all arranged for the highest good, but each individual has line-item veto power when it comes to the planning of their 'life experience' ("the ride" as Bill Hicks called it). I'm using the word 'dangerous' above to indicate something that will likely result in painful consequences for the participants, which come in the form of a life-lesson (much different from 'something bad happening').




posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   


I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
-Voltaire
reply to post by superman2012
 


I find that's how I have always tried to look at it. Not always easy, but in the long run worth it.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by beezzer
 


Westboro isnt a peaceable assembly when they unload at a funeral. Its provocative. In some states its againts the law to disrupt a lawfull assembly like a church or other meeting so this just extends that assholes that disrupt funerals are unlawfully disrupting. Its a lesser form of say what the Co shooter did in his disruption of a lawfull gathering of people watching a movie. He moved outside the protection of the 2A when he started shooting at noncombatants just as westboro moves outside the freedom of speech when they bring a blowhorn to a funeral.


edit on 4-8-2012 by Logarock because: sp

I believe in Freedom of Speech.

However, I also believe that Congress should pass a law granting immunity to Honor Guards for any action required in the performance of their duties in defending the honor of fallen service members.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by seamus
 

Call it my foggy brain not fully awake yet and focused on more than one window here, but I'm not getting your reply? What exactly is worse than the laws on free speech? I try and follow up on replies..but I'm not coming away real sure what direction your coming from?



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
What about the state granting exceptions to certain forms of free speech? Such as:

1. Hate speech
2. Speech that may incite violence or physical harm to another

Does anybody here believe there should be certain limitations on free speech? I don't, personally I think the above "exceptions" are the very foundation as to erode all free speech ultimately.

I've come to understand that your "average joe blow" is actually quite accepting to the idea of limiting certain types of speech... Which I think is hypocritical.

Kinda like people who are for the second ammendment...except for the guy down the street who once purposely drove his car over his neighbors mailbox (felony)...

That type of hypocritical rhetoric I hear all the time from people. What are your thoughts? Anyone feel I'm wrong? Please.....Enlighten me..When, Where, or how does the bill of rights grant limitations on it's ammendments?



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by foodstamp
 





1. Hate speech
2. Speech that may incite violence or physical harm to another


Hate speech is not criminalized. It is certainly frowned upon, but ironically many of those frowning upon hate speech seem to think their own brand of hate speech is justified in criticizing hate speech.

Inciting violence (physical harm) is undoubtedly a crime. However, criminal prosecution of this crime is arbitrary. There are many who were in L.A. in 1994, after the acquittal of police officers who beat Rodney King, who fiercely believe it was Maxine Waters, dramatically chanting "No justice, no peace!" who incited the riot that followed. A riot that resulted in 53 people killed, looting and much property damage. Maxine Waters was never charged with inciting a riot and has enjoyed a long career as a Representative in Congress.

I used to live in Waters district, and I personally like her and remember one day watching her respond to criticisms of focusing on white people in the community too much. Her reply was calm and reasoned as she explained that in her district more than just black people live there, and that as U.S. Congresswoman she has a responsibility to all her constituents not just black people. However, her "No justice, no peace" chant was undoubtedly a spark in a fire that lasted for six days back in 1994, and her justification of the looting, and carnage, calling the riots an insurrection, and rebellion only underscores the very real problem with inciting riots and violence. 53 people killed. Dead. 53 people.

Since the Rodney King riots black people still face corrupt cops who are inclined to harass and treat them poorly more so than white people, so if Waters was correct about this "rebellion", it obviously failed.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Although I do agree with your previous statements. I must disagree with your comment about convictions based on people "inciting violence"

I can think of 3 people charged right now, friends of mine over the years where their words have been the reason for there arrest. 2 of which were convicted of "inciting riots" based of there speech alone....Convicted by a jury of their peers mind you. (damn shame)

Anyway, Your obviously of an intellectual bent. So I don't see you taking any offense in me asking you to do a quick google search of the topic and replying to this issue. Because people are convicted of felony and misdemeanor charges due to their speech on a DAILY basis. Whereas your refering to two infamous isolated incidences.

I eagerly await your incite on this issue..

Ps, I am also very curious as to weither or not you do in fact support limitations on both amendment 1 and 2.. And why, or even better, how you think the bill of rights allows for limitations.

edit on 8/5/1212 by foodstamp because: Forgot the "PS"



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


It used to be just black people that were harassed by police.

That saying about "when they came for me, no one was there to speak for me" comes to mind.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


A few thoughts...
1) Chik-Fil-A - was anyone stopping anyone's 1st'Amendment rights with this? I love Chik-Fil-A on the odd occasion that i want fast food, and this whole thing won't affect me eating there at all, though I am Christian and an avid supporter of the Constitution - mainly because I don't care what others' beliefs are, no matter how ignorant. While I am against those who support limiting the freedoms (not allowing gay marriage) of others based on their sexuality, and feel that most of the vocal anti-gay crowd are an embarassment to Christians everywhere, becuase they act in predominantly un-Christian ways, while keeping a healthy obsession with quashing gay rights, I am fully in support of Chik's decision to openly despise the idea of gays being treated as equals. Remember, even the CEOs of fast food chains have a right to hate freedom. I just must have missed it if someone somewhere was limiting either Chik's president or the "kiss" protestors' freedom of speech.

2) OWS - this one is pure garbage. The new laws are worse than W's "free speech zones." nobody can really argue there's a problem with our last two presidents being open opponents of the 1st Amendment. Both should be tried for treason. Screw impeachment.

3) Westboro - now this is a tough one. I would assume they could be denied entry if it was a privately-owned, or church-owned cemetary, but if its public, there's probably not much you can do to stop the most despised people since Hitler from ruining the one-time event solemn grieving moment for friends and family of the deceased. The best I can come up with is to hope for horribly painful flesh-eating disease to strike down every member of the satanic cult known as the Westboro Baptist Church.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by foodstamp
 


I would like to think that my stance in this thread has all ready made it clear that I do not support any limitations what-so-ever in regards to unalienable rights. In fact, I think it is outrageous that people even believe their support or lack of it for unalienable rights has some bearing on those rights. Forgive me, I'm in the middle of a project right now and don't really have the time to scroll back and read my posts in this thread, but it seems to me I clarified how we can know what is and what isn't a right, and that is by the lack of harm. Outside of defense, that which causes no harm is done by right.

In terms of your request I Google "the topic", I am not clear what precisely what you want me to Google. I just Googled "inciting a riot" and there was this article. Knowing little about the London riot at issue in this article, and only going by this article, if indeed these two used Facebook to incite that riot then there is demonstrable harm because of that. However, that same article links to another story about a man arrested for using Facebook to organize a water gun fight. The excuse for this atrocious behavior by government is the high alert due to the London riot, and this only illustrates that the greatest threat has always been government.

These two incidences, which are in regards to the United Kingdom, demonstrate a stark contrast in just arrests, (assuming the two men who used Facebook did indeed incite a riot) and the unjust railroading of some poor slob who only wanted to have a water-gun fight.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Wow bro, that watergun thing is outrageous.... Back when I was in high school, we came up with this cool assassination game with waterguns, paid 20 bucks to play, winner took the pot. Assassinations had to take place in public, in front of witnesses to count. It was a whole lot of fun.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


Yeah, governments have been trying for years to criminalize fun. It's the times we live in. We live in interesting times.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Forgive me, But I started reading this topic where I posted. Heh. So If you made your stance known I just plain didn't look. I'm sure you were informative and concise.

Let's drop the google idea, because quite frankly, I'm more interested in your opinion than I am weather or not you believe me that people are prosecuted with crimes strictly for what they say, that's a quest you can pursue at your own leisure. trust me, it's there...However, this is my question...

A "guy's" in a bar, there's suddenly siren's outside so the bar patrons, let's say twenty, go outside. They find a man cuffed and bleeding on the ground, not moving. Police then go over to the subdued "suspect" and proceed to kick him repeatedly in the face. The twenty patrons stare in awe at what there seeing. Untill our "guy" has the nerve to speak up and says this. "I'll be g*ddamned we stand by any longer and allows this to to happen!" "What's wrong with you people!?"

At that point the crowd goes wild and beats the officers into submission and then uncuff the suspect. Then the twenty people proceed to leave the scene in all directions. Is our "Guy" guilty of a crime if he did not participate?



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by foodstamp
 


How was the case presented to the jury? Was it presented the same way you just presented it? As you presented it, I would say that the ones guilty of inciting a riot were the police officers, but I've only heard one side of the story from one person.

If you remove this scenario from fact, and simply provide a hypothetical, my answer is that it was the police who incited a riot by acting unlawfully. I cannot speak intelligently to the factual incident. In the hypothetical as you described it, these twenty people acted lawfully and stopped a crime. This is not to say the one who was handcuffed shouldn't have been handcuffed, but once cuffed, as you describe it, those police officers acted criminally.

It is not unlawful to stop criminality.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


The scenario is totally hypothetical. I don't understand how it's not ok to express an opinion and be criminally responsible for someone elses actions.. That's what I can't wrap my head around.. Do you see where i'm coming from? Do you see where I disagree with what your saying?

How can a guy be criminally responsible for the actions of another if he's expressing his view in the heat of the moment?

Another example. Let's says a "guy" has a youtube account where he says "Whitey must die" and gives reason upon reason about why "Whitey must die". He's arrested and held without charge without bail due to our new laws. No followers of his site act on his "opinions" but nonetheless the "hate speech" alone has gotten him arrested and withheld. Is this ok?



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 



It is not unlawful to stop criminality.



Each state, with the exception of North Carolina, permits citizen arrests if the commission of a felony is witnessed by the arresting citizen, or when a citizen is asked to assist in the apprehension of a suspect by police. The application of state laws varies widely with respect to misdemeanors, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party. For example, Arizona law allows a citizen's arrest if the arrestor has personally witnessed the offense occurring.
en.wikipedia.org...

as you mentioned - we're only hearing one side of this story



I agree - based on what we just heard - the cops broke the law

I also understand that this isn't something that's really going to work out for the arresting citizen

but enough is enough - this sort of thing is becoming all too common

edit to add: sometimes it pays to read just one more post :-)

but, still - it's not an uncommon scenario anymore

edit on 8/5/2012 by Spiramirabilis because: gun jumping[



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by dogstar23
reply to post by beezzer
 


A few thoughts...
1) Chik-Fil-A - was anyone stopping anyone's 1st'Amendment rights with this? I love Chik-Fil-A on the odd occasion that i want fast food, and this whole thing won't affect me eating there at all, though I am Christian and an avid supporter of the Constitution - mainly because I don't care what others' beliefs are, no matter how ignorant. While I am against those who support limiting the freedoms (not allowing gay marriage) of others based on their sexuality, and feel that most of the vocal anti-gay crowd are an embarassment to Christians everywhere, becuase they act in predominantly un-Christian ways, while keeping a healthy obsession with quashing gay rights, I am fully in support of Chik's decision to openly despise the idea of gays being treated as equals. Remember, even the CEOs of fast food chains have a right to hate freedom. I just must have missed it if someone somewhere was limiting either Chik's president or the "kiss" protestors' freedom of speech.


There have been no laws against him but many (even here on ATS were all for silencing him, Just read the threads.


2) OWS - this one is pure garbage. The new laws are worse than W's "free speech zones." nobody can really argue there's a problem with our last two presidents being open opponents of the 1st Amendment. Both should be tried for treason. Screw impeachment.


Agreed.


3) Westboro - now this is a tough one. I would assume they could be denied entry if it was a privately-owned, or church-owned cemetary, but if its public, there's probably not much you can do to stop the most despised people since Hitler from ruining the one-time event solemn grieving moment for friends and family of the deceased. The best I can come up with is to hope for horribly painful flesh-eating disease to strike down every member of the satanic cult known as the Westboro Baptist Church.


All three should be supported and fought for equally. Because all three concern themselves with free speech. Sure, hate the message, despise what they stand for, but allow them to speak.

I chose these three because they were topical and they represented a broad spectrum of the populace.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I think you need to add a few more tears to your avatar. I cannot believe there are americans that think widdling away at our fundamental and inalienable rights is not only lawful, but the right thing to do.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by beezzer
 


I think you need to add a few more tears to your avatar. I cannot believe there are americans that think widdling away at our fundamental and inalienable rights is not only lawful, but the right thing to do.


You're right.

The justifications for such actions just staggers me.




posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


It just disgusts me. The "education" system has let us down bigtime. Most people don't know and understand their rights, or know why they were put there in the first place.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join