It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 8
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 01:52 PM

If you're going to utilise free speech, you better be willing to take responsibility for what you say.

The guy made a bad film, Obama condemned him for it, and wants the guy to take his responsibility for making a bad film that incited riots.

And you see no contradiction to that and call it censorship by the government.

I guess free speech is okay as long as one agrees with it. If one doesn't agree with it then the guy must take responsibility for saying something wrong.

Yeah, sure there's no contradiction in that.

Free speech always seems to be a one way street with most people.

posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 11:16 PM

Originally posted by buster2010
This country is what matters here not other countries.

I'm assuming you're meaning America???

Also the lawsuit filed by the woman that was in the video and the poorly dubbed audio shows it was made to get a hateful reaction out of Muslims. That violates any claim to free speech.

If it was a call to immediate violence against Muslims it might have a case.

To give a very straight forward example, Minnesota, 1992, a law prohibiting burning crosses (a symbol of the KKK) was struck down as being against the constitution.

Even if the film maker did intend to cause violence this would have to be proven. Even then, in America you can still state that you think violence against a minority should be legal for example without being charged with anything. People won't like it but you can do it!

The woman actor in the film's law suit seems to be more about her rights/defamation rather than saying the film is not 'free speech'.

The complaint contends that keeping it [the video] online violates her right of publicity, invades her privacy rights and the post-filming dialogue changes cast her in a false light. "(Garcia) had a legally protected interest in her privacy and the right to be free from having hateful words put in her mouth or being depicted as a bigot,"


I haven't been able to find anywhere with a court in America agreeing that the film is not covered as free speech yet. The woman's lawyer specifically states the case isn't an attack on free speech or American's right to say what they feel in some sources. It is about the situation of her client.

Kind of funny how everyone is crying about how our free speech is being taken away but said nothing about the rights to free speech has been stripped away from citizens a campus in California where it is now illegal to criticize Israel.

Are you referring to California house resolution 35?

Urges the UC leadership to continue to take action to address
anti-Semitism on its campuses while staying within the
constraints of the First Amendment to the United States

Resolves that the Legislature condemns all forms of
intolerance on public postsecondary educational institutions
and calls upon these institutions to increase their efforts to
condemn acts of anti-Semitism and to utilize existing


HR35 does not introduce any laws or make anything illegal. In fact, it is simply yet another example of the policy making branch of the academic community attempting to exercise muscles it doesn't have.

There is a long history of academic institutions attempting to prevent certain types of discourse in America and, almost without fail to my knowledge, when it comes to a head and gets to court they end up finding their policy as against the constitution. There have been a few times where students have been expelled only to win in court at a later date.

Legislature refers to a body of persons in this context and not to any new laws. They can condemn all they like, they cannot make a law which goes against first amendment rights. I've only just familiarized myself with this issue so please let me know if any new laws have been put in place ... but even then I suspect they would fail once challenged.

posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 09:37 AM

Originally posted by beezzer

Why should we give a damn WHAT another country says or does?

...cuz we share the world with other countries and we don't want to be at perpetual war.

To have another country dictate to us our own freedoms is appaling!

B...WTF???...I am confused how you see anyone dictating OUR freedoms? That there is some drooling, hit yourself in the head type idealogical stunted thinking.

We are flying drones over the whole of the Middle East and Africa as we please, pulling the trigger every other week. Sending Navy seals to whack terrorists wherever we find them regardless of borders...We bombed, invaded and occupied Iraq and Afghanistan for over a decade...

But WHAT??? Cuz we aren't defending the Meth-Dealer/Evangelical/right wing wacko that made the youtube where Mohammed molests kids..... That means that the Middle East is "dictating our freedoms"???

.....OUR FREEDOMS!!! ..complete absense of any rational thought...just sooo Palin! Bachman! and all those other folks that "just feel" that "thinking" is communist...

edit on 24-9-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 09:50 AM

Originally posted by popcornmafia

Originally posted by Indigo5

Why don't we just let them know we thought the film was trash too? And save the civics lessons for a time when they are not rioting???

DUMB Rhetoric these are sharper than this

How about they stop talking for ALL AMERICANS.?!?
Some Would say the movie IS NOT trash, one of the BEST pieces OF ART in recent time.'s a big world will all kinds....Some people suffer from the mental condition Coprophagia ...They eat some people would say it is delicious...but that doesn't make a pile of Sh*& filet mignon any more than this movie is "the BEST peice OF ART in recent times".
edit on 24-9-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in