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.

 

Religious tolerance trumps freedom of speech. The death of the 1st Amendment.

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Decry the violence. Check!
State that the video sucks. Check!
Defend their rights to be offensive. *crickets*




posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by GrimReaper86
 


Exactly! We'll never see the Chinese getting all bent about something they saw on American YouTube. Why? Because they censor the "snip" out of everything. YouTube can't censor what might be offensive to too controversial for countries X, Y, ans Z. That would be the job of X, Y and Z.


China in a sense did censor the remake of "Red Dawn".

That movie has been sitting on the shelf for years now and even though they have a release date finally, it'll be on NetFlix a month later due to poor sales.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by beezzer
 



Originally posted by beezzer
Then why whine aout the video which is an expression of someones opinion?


Whining about someone's opinion isn't exactly crushing their first amendment right. In fact, whining about it is exercising one's free speech rights! I support Fred Phelps' freedom of speech, but you can bet I'm going to whine about it. Disagreement isn't the same as TRUMPING our freedom of speech.

The video won't play for me but what law has been made to shut people up?

As far as Breitbart? Trust me, I'm over it.


There hasn't been a law YET for this.

But there have been laws passed over Westboro Baptist, Occupy, TDawg gave a great example about the marine.

It's coming.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by GrimReaper86
 

or a barrel with alarm, which goes off before the last drop falls.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Pretty stupid.

The guy made the film, he was free to do so
They made a video denouncing it
How was anyone's freedom of speech effected?



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by icepack
reply to post by TDawgRex
 



Pray tell what is the difference?

it is the intention. some people should switch on their brain, before they speak. words can be mighty, so they should be chosen carefully.

edit on 21-9-2012 by icepack because: (no reason given)


Many times, it is my intention to hurt some ones feeling because I think that they have done something stupid or are just a flat out oxygen thief. And I chose my words quite well for the situation.

ETA: I'm not implying that you are any of the above.

During Iraq, we used loudspeakers to call the insurgent every insult in the book. The dumbs ones would let their tempers get the best of them and come out guns blazing...at which point, one of our snipers would shoot them on the spot.

The smart ones ignore the rhetoric and lived to fight another day.

I think that we are seeing something along similiar lines here.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Decry the violence. Check!
State that the video sucks. Check!
Defend their rights to be offensive. *crickets*


I think if Muslim representatives demanded that Obama pass a law that prohibits Americans from making videos, he would defend the Americans' rights to make those videos. Have you heard him say that these types of videos won't be allowed any longer???

There is a political reason why he didn't bring up the right to be offensive. There are mighty tensions between countries and cultures right now. Unless you want even more trouble, or a bigger war -- why bring that up?

There was a reason to decry the violence - because there was violence. There was a reason to deny the U. S. government's involvement with the video - because of the already existing tensions, politically speaking. What would be the reason to bring up rights to be offensive? Just to piss off Muslims even more? Is that what you are getting at here? That could be the only reason I can think of.

To use my example, if Obama decried the black protest violence, and denied any government involvement with the KKK video, would it be prudent to then go on about the KKK's right to make such a video? How would that help anything?
edit on 21-9-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Any excuse, any oppourtunity, and the government takes to form new laws to curtail free speech.

I cite Occupy, Westboro Baptist for two of the most current.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Any excuse, any oppourtunity, and the government takes to form new laws to curtail free speech.

I cite Occupy, Westboro Baptist for two of the most current.


I am not familiar with any laws restricting free speech. I believe Westboro Baptist has some restrictions on where they can physically protest, but not on what they can or can't say. Am I wrong?



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


The Muslim Brotherhood out of Egypt is already pressing Washington to pass laws that prohibit the criticism of Islam. That has been in the news for awhile now.

If such a law were to pass, how much longer before other stupid laws would be passed furthering the erosion of our rights?

We already have entirely to many stupid laws on the books already, some of which contradict other laws.

Islam needs to grow a thicker skin if something as inane as this flick upsets them to the point of rioting and killing.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by beezzer
Any excuse, any oppourtunity, and the government takes to form new laws to curtail free speech.

I cite Occupy, Westboro Baptist for two of the most current.


I am not familiar with any laws restricting free speech. I believe Westboro Baptist has some restrictions on where they can physically protest, but not on what they can or can't say. Am I wrong?


Aren't they called "Free Speech Zones"?

Zones being the key word here.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by BritofTexas
reply to post by beezzer
 


Did you put Carrots in your ears when Obama said,

"There is no justification for this type of senseless violence..None"



Then why whine aout the video which is an expression of someones opinion?


Who was whining?

Obama said the U.S. is a nation of religious tolerance and decried the violence.
Clinton said the video has nothing to do with the government or the American people as a whole.

Would you rather they said,
'Everybody in America supports this video including but not limited to;-
Beezer
Floppy Eared House
Bobtail Lane
Near Nice Restaurants
Bunnyville"



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by beezzer
Any excuse, any oppourtunity, and the government takes to form new laws to curtail free speech.

I cite Occupy, Westboro Baptist for two of the most current.


I am not familiar with any laws restricting free speech. I believe Westboro Baptist has some restrictions on where they can physically protest, but not on what they can or can't say. Am I wrong?


When you start restricting where someone can speak freely, what's next?



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Until the current adminstration and bill and hilary the usual "progressives" start showing that same religious tolerance to Christians all they are doing is pandering to people that wants us dead.

There are no if ands or buts about that and no amount of "appeasement" or "aploogy" is ever going to change that.

Religious tolerance trumping freedom of speech?

Only if your a muslim if your a christian or jew forget it.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 



Many times, it is my intention to hurt some ones feeling because I think that they have done something stupid or are just a flat out oxygen thief.

who are you to judge what life is worth or not ? mistakes are no coincidence, infact the developement of life is based on mistakes (mutations).
btw, do you think the iraq war was about "it's us or them" survival thing ?


edit on 21-9-2012 by icepack because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


The Muslim Brotherhood out of Egypt is already pressing Washington to pass laws that prohibit the criticism of Islam. That has been in the news for awhile now.

If such a law were to pass, how much longer before other stupid laws would be passed furthering the erosion of our rights?

We already have entirely to many stupid laws on the books already, some of which contradict other laws.

Islam needs to grow a thicker skin if something as inane as this flick upsets them to the point of rioting and killing.


Show me which law is currently in congress or on the books that prohibits the criticism of Islam. Until you can show me that, you are talking out of your behind (no disrespect intended).

I totally agree with your last statement. There is NO justification for rioting and killing over a video/book/movie/speech, etc. I believe that is exactly what Obama said.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Dnepropetrovsk
 


No one's freedom of speech has been effected. Yet.....I think the concern of the OP and of the majority of people in the forum is that freedom of speech will be effected because of fear of Muslim retaliation.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~Ben Franklin



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrimReaper86
reply to post by Dnepropetrovsk
 


No one's freedom of speech has been effected. Yet.....I think the concern of the OP and of the majority of people in the forum is that freedom of speech will be effected because of fear of Muslim retaliation.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~Ben Franklin



Right, so with nobody's freedom being effected that means that the entire thing is based on nothing...



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   
I watched the video and I think Obama and Hillary said exactly what needed to be said.

They did not claim that we need to stop people from making these sorts of videos. They just took an official stance that the video was in bad taste and does not reflect the mentality of the US government.

Nothing in the video with Obama and Hillary would indicate to me that our 1st amendment rights are in jeopardy.

While I agree with you Beezer that we need to make sure people have the right to speak freely, we also have to educate people on how we have a personal responsibility to our 1st amendment rights to use it responsibly.

So while this person had the right to make the Islam video, we have the right to denounce the video and their intent as we see it.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by icepack
reply to post by TDawgRex
 



Many times, it is my intention to hurt some ones feeling because I think that they have done something stupid or are just a flat out oxygen thief.

who are you to judge what life is worth or not ? mistakes are no coincidence, infact the developement of life is based on mistakes (mutations).
btw, do you think the iraq war was about "it's us or them" survival thing ?


edit on 21-9-2012 by icepack because: (no reason given)


When you are being shot at...it is most definitely an "Us vs. Them" thing. And you'll do what is necessary to keep you and yours alive.

And if I think someone is being a blatant idiot, I’ll call them out most times. If I’m on a date, we’ll go someplace else where there is more oxygen.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join