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: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
My intuitive side is telling me this is not a move of sincerity. My gut is telling me this is just another type of manipulation. You see, they don't really care if the Muslims accept their apology or whatever it is; what they care about is the response of the American people and the world in general.

On one side, they want the American people to respond with outrage, like you are doing in this thread; claiming that the 1st Amendment is not being represented as it should be, thus increasing your disdain for the religion of Islam.

And for those who are not informed of these amendments; they just want them to look at the apology as a form of mediation. They want the ill-informed Americans to look at this apology and say: "Wow, the president is offering an apology and they are still acting like savages" When in reality, only a minority are acting like wild beasts, thus increasing MORE contempt for the religion of Islam, and Muslims.

Justification is the goal... for what... that is the question.

Very subtle manipulation.




posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

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?


You're projecting. There have always been some restrictions on where someone can physically have their free speech or protest. You have to maintain some semblance of order, otherwise there could be total chaos, preventing normal business from operating. That's nothing new.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dnepropetrovsk

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


People complained about Occupy. I personally don't agree with them. But now they can only "voice" their concerns in special areas.

I could wait to voice my concerns until they pass draconian laws, but by then, I probably wouldn't be allowed to.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


I wrote they were pressing for such a law. Meaning Lobbyists. I didnt write that it was in the process.

Give it time though...it's only a matter of time before we see someone present the bill for approval.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Did anyone else notice that the topic had to be completely changed to something else (free speech zones) because the guy who made the video did not have his freedoms taken away in any way shape or form?



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


I wrote they were pressing for such a law. Meaning Lobbyists. I didnt write that it was in the process.

Give it time though...it's only a matter of time before we see someone present the bill for approval.


Well, if such a bill ever passed that did not allow anyone to publicly criticize the Muslim religion ... I will shave off all my dog's hair, and eat it -- and I'll put it on Youtube!!!!



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv
You're projecting. There have always been some restrictions on where someone can physically have their free speech or protest. You have to maintain some semblance of order, otherwise there could be total chaos, preventing normal business from operating. That's nothing new.


And this is how it starts. People accepting limitations, just small ones, (and they're against people we don't really like, so it's okay) and it's not what you can say (right now) it's just where you can say it (right now).

Free speech is a "hot button" topic for me.


I can't stand Westboro, but the law inhibiting them irked me.
I'm no fan of OWS, but their restrictions irked me.

When you stop defending the rights to free speech, you're giving tacit approval for the forced silence.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dnepropetrovsk
Did anyone else notice that the topic had to be completely changed to something else (free speech zones) because the guy who made the video did not have his freedoms taken away in any way shape or form?


The guy who made the video was taken away...for his own safety I'll grant you that, but in releasing the video he caused is own freedom to be curtailed.

You could say he shot himself in the foot.

But now his mistake has taken on world-wide ramifications.

The POTUS and SoS should have denounced this vid, but me thinks they also have something else up their sleeve as well.

And their statements, just did not seem all that genuine...but hey, they're Pols, so I take everything they say with a grain of salt.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Dnepropetrovsk
 


Yes, more or less. The thread is based solely on concern and apparently a few political comments that haven't actually effected anything..



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


I wrote they were pressing for such a law. Meaning Lobbyists. I didnt write that it was in the process.

Give it time though...it's only a matter of time before we see someone present the bill for approval.


Well, if such a bill ever passed that did not allow anyone to publicly criticize the Muslim religion ... I will shave off all my dog's hair, and eat it -- and I'll put it on Youtube!!!!


Not the Dog! That would offend me!
I'm only one guy, so I guess I'll just have to settle for trashing my apartment.

Instead, shave yourself bald and eat the hair, with fava beans and a nice chianti.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dnepropetrovsk
Did anyone else notice that the topic had to be completely changed to something else (free speech zones) because the guy who made the video did not have his freedoms taken away in any way shape or form?


So you're okay with the inhibition of free speech, because that's what it is.

You CAN'T say that here.

You can go over there.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Dnepropetrovsk
Did anyone else notice that the topic had to be completely changed to something else (free speech zones) because the guy who made the video did not have his freedoms taken away in any way shape or form?


So you're okay with the inhibition of free speech, because that's what it is.

You CAN'T say that here.

You can go over there.


Nice straw man, the guy did not have his freedoms taken away /story



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by icepack
reply to post by beezzer
 

there is a difference between freedom of speech and offensive propaganda with bad intentions.



If that were the case, then the whole of our gov and its leaders should be banned from ever using any type of media......

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech.........we dont need legislation to PROTECT people from being offended....

We do not need any more of this nanny/police state tripe, to add more restrictions.......

Didnt you people learn this when Bush pushed through the patriot act?



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dnepropetrovsk

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Dnepropetrovsk
Did anyone else notice that the topic had to be completely changed to something else (free speech zones) because the guy who made the video did not have his freedoms taken away in any way shape or form?


So you're okay with the inhibition of free speech, because that's what it is.

You CAN'T say that here.

You can go over there.


Nice straw man, the guy did not have his freedoms taken away /story


Not him, but others have. But since you don't "agree" with those people, I guess it's okay.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Dnepropetrovsk
Did anyone else notice that the topic had to be completely changed to something else (free speech zones) because the guy who made the video did not have his freedoms taken away in any way shape or form?


So you're okay with the inhibition of free speech, because that's what it is.

You CAN'T say that here.

You can go over there.


Ever heard of something called "disturbing the peace"? That's why you can't have a noisy protest march down the middle of a neighborhood at 3:00 in the morning. You CAN have that noisy protest march during the day in a public arena, as long as you don't impede normal business from operating.

Look, I agree with you that freedom of speech is a precious thing in our country, and we should always be able to voice our criticism, even if it's wrong or small-minded. But you have to have some parameters to follow, or there would be utter chaos. If you allow a free-for-all in the where and when, then it hurts us as a country, as a society, and as a community.

But this really doesn't have anything to do with the anti-muslim video, as it was allowed to be made, and the person making it was not arrested, detained, or penalized. You are making this into something that it isn't, and you are saying things like, "well, it might could maybe happen sometime possibly potentially". I really think it's just another attempt to bash Obama - and it's a pretty lame one at that.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 





Look, I agree with you that freedom of speech is a precious thing in our country, and we should always be able to voice our criticism, even if it's wrong or small-minded. But you have to have some parameters to follow, or there would be utter chaos. If you allow a free-for-all in the where and when, then it hurts us as a country, as a society, and as a community.


no you dont, its not the governments job, nor should it be, to protect people from their own stupidity...

If you allow things like this to happen , then the effects cascade, and before long the thought police have such a strangle hold on you, you are put in jail for anything they deem out of line....

If you allow any gov to dictate what is acceptable to say and what is not acceptable to say, you must also remember that its these same people who will determine the parameters........inevitably to your own detriment.....



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by kaylaluv
 





Look, I agree with you that freedom of speech is a precious thing in our country, and we should always be able to voice our criticism, even if it's wrong or small-minded. But you have to have some parameters to follow, or there would be utter chaos. If you allow a free-for-all in the where and when, then it hurts us as a country, as a society, and as a community.


If you allow things like this to happen , then the effects cascade, and before long the thought police have such a strangle hold on you, you are put in jail for anything they deem out of line....



Things like what???? Would you be okay with a noisy march going down your street in the middle of the night, when you've got a baby that needs it's sleep?

It IS the government's job to protect it's people.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


I think they are referring to a "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" type of argument.

Do we have the right to free speech? Yes.

Do we have a responsibility to not yell fire so that people get trampled on their way out the door? Yes.

I think that is what people are missing here. Free speech comes with a responsibility in how you use it. You also have the right to bare arms. Does that mean we can pop-off rounds wherever we want? No...there's a responsibility that goes along with that right.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Here it is.
The 1st amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


en.wikipedia.org...

Just 45 words. No caveats. No "special circumstances", no falsly yelling fire in a theatre clause, no religious exemptions. No interpretations. No butthurt clauses.

It must drive some peopl crazy, this little amendment.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 

the freedom of speech ends, if you insult or discriminate. this freedom of speech is limited like all other freedoms are.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join