It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by WeAreAWAKE
She is going to be "re-educated" from what? The music industry unquestionably does just that...find "tools" and characters to make famous. Not musicians or talent. I know...I spent some time in the music industry. Back in the 70s, a band was a band and if they had a sound, they might get a contract. Today...it doesn't matter what you play or how you sound. The only thing the industry looks at is will you allow them to mold you into what they want. Hell...I can guarantee you have never heard the best singers, the best bands or the best musicians. They won't conform or won't be made into a joke...so their music and talent will never see the light of day. The music industry controls radio and everything else. It is impossible to get famous when they control every avenue of listening to music.
scare word with no bearing here.......assume.....Reptilian plot...... poisoning......HAARP waves......Reptillian invasion
This is not re-education, being locked in a ward, getting drugs, or being told how to think. Seems like a reasonable call.
Originally posted by freedomwv
The entire idea of Illuminati is a false material reality to hide cold reason without any social context or social relation to the economic system.
Ms. Hill claimed that her refusal to pay taxes was based on the existence of slavery 150 years ago, her desire to withdraw from society (and presumably, it's obligations), and the desire to protect her children from the "Musical - Military Complex."
It wasn't that she had read about these things, or even talked with others about them. She believed they were true, and significant enough to offer as a formal defense to criminal charges.
I'm sorry, but I will continue to maintain that there is something wrong with a mind like that. Quite possibly, nothing serious, but she does have the responsibility of caring for six children.
The judge could easily have ordered a 72 hour hold on her, if he thought she was a danger to anyone, but he didn't. She could have been sentenced to years in jail, but she gets three months and some talks with a counsellor. I'd take that trade any day, I suspect most would.
And if the counsellor reports that she's about to blow up the city, her attorney will ask for a second opinion from one of their psychiatrists, then Hill either walks away, or she's put away to protect people. Sounds reasonable.
I'm still not convinced that, if I went down the street with a T-shirt proclaiming that I frequently post on ATS, anybody would care or that action would be taken against me.
Maybe it's semantics. I don't see counselling as in the same league as drugs, surgery, and restraints. But you're right, it's scary that there is a judgment call made by fallible people. I just don't see the alternative in cases where the question of mental, what, competence? comes up.
The part that bothers me about this is story, or any other story about legally forced psychological treatment, is the idea of drawing a line somewhere along that spectrum of nuttiness and declaring that any who cross that line shall be forced into treatment.