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.

 

University’s Student Government Bans Offensive Speech

page: 4
20
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 08:06 PM
link   

kaylaluv

Advantage

kaylaluv

buster2010

kaylaluv

beezzer

kaylaluv

beezzer

kaylaluv
Gee, I wonder why ATS doesn't allow "offensive" language? Why do they remove posts that talk about how Hitler was a hero, and was right to do what he did? Why do they remove posts that bash the victims of Sandy Hook, etc.? Oppressing our freedom of speech, Shame on you, ATS!!!!!!!!!


Private club vs state university.

You're FOR this?


Look at the reasons behind it, Beezer. WHY does ATS not allow certain language? What is their reasoning behind their rules? What if I wanted to call you a certain name for someone who is not totally white? Do you think ATS would ding me for that? Why would they do that? Maybe because it would be ..... offensive?? What if you wanted to call me a certain 4-letter word reserved for females, starting with the letter C, and ending in the letters NT?

I think the student government has the same reasonings for their rule as ATS has for theirs. There is no reason to say hurtful, nasty things to each other when discussing ideas, issues, events, etc.


You should be free to say anything you wanted about me.

I don't have an obligation to listen or respond.


That's not what ATS thinks. If you are that mad about them restricting our speech, I'm surprised you haven't left the site in a huff.


What makes you think you have freedom of speech on this forum? You agreed to a set of rules when you joined this site and those rules state what you can or cannot say. I know I have been busted enough for breaking that rule.


I am very aware that we don't have freedom of speech on this forum. All those in favor of freedom of speech should leave this site in protest! Those who don't leave, really don't have as much problem with restricting speech as they claim to.


...and some of us respect the person's house we are in.. particularly when that person has been gracious enough to let us know what he or she expects while we are visiting.


This isn't a house. This is the internet. People from all over the world can view what we have written here. This isn't some private home, where it's just a couple of people and the owner.


You're absolutely right, its even more than simply a house with an implied agreement for your behavior while in the house. Here on ATS you actually agree to certain things before you are allowed to have an account and enter into conversations. I guess there is even less of an excuse for asinine behavior since surely you read what you agree to, right?




posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   

badgerprints

kaylaluv
This isn't a house. This is the internet. People from all over the world can view what we have written here. This isn't some private home, where it's just a couple of people and the owner.


A "house" is an apt analogy for the home or meeting place of a specific group with specific membership.

The content of this site is accessible to anybody but participation is not.

There are rules that must be agreed to in order to join and participate.



My point was, it's not just the owner that sees what we write. The owners aren't just worried about their own sensitivity, as they would be in their own home. The owners are concerned about all the people reading our posts. It's a very "public" house, therefore our speech is public. Should our public speech be restricted, as it is on this site?



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Advantage



You're absolutely right, its even more than simply a house with an implied agreement for your behavior while in the house. Here on ATS you actually agree to certain things before you are allowed to have an account and enter into conversations. I guess there is even less of an excuse for asinine behavior since surely you read what you agree to, right?


But should ATS be allowed to restrict what we say on such a public forum, when our speech here is truly public, and not private in any way?



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 08:13 PM
link   

kaylaluv

Advantage



You're absolutely right, its even more than simply a house with an implied agreement for your behavior while in the house. Here on ATS you actually agree to certain things before you are allowed to have an account and enter into conversations. I guess there is even less of an excuse for asinine behavior since surely you read what you agree to, right?


But should ATS be allowed to restrict what we say on such a public forum, when our speech here is truly public, and not private in any way?


ABSOLUTELY. Its an owned site. Privately owned.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 



My point was, it's not just the owner that sees what we write. The owners aren't just worried about their own sensitivity, as they would be in their own home. The owners are concerned about all the people reading our posts. It's a very "public" house, therefore our speech is public. Should our public speech be restricted, as it is on this site?

Yes it is a very public house. It's also a place of business. A business that has sponsors, as well as customers to consider. That's why we are asked to abide by certain rules before being allowed access. I am a businessman as well. And when I had a store front, I did not tolerate profanity or rudeness in my store. Not for my sake, but for the sake of my customers.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Advantage

kaylaluv

Advantage



You're absolutely right, its even more than simply a house with an implied agreement for your behavior while in the house. Here on ATS you actually agree to certain things before you are allowed to have an account and enter into conversations. I guess there is even less of an excuse for asinine behavior since surely you read what you agree to, right?


But should ATS be allowed to restrict what we say on such a public forum, when our speech here is truly public, and not private in any way?


ABSOLUTELY. Its an owned site. Privately owned.


So you're saying that public speech SHOULD be allowed to be restricted to avoid being offensive. I agree.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 08:18 PM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by badgerprints
 


But it is censorship meant to bring about "inclusion".



Words come from thoughts. Words are a verbal expression of our thoughts.


Actually, I'd go a bit further . . . WORDS ARE INSEPARABLE FROM OUR THOUGHTS AND THOUGHTS ARE INSEPARABLE FROM OUR WORDS. The meaning is inherent in the words.

Though the OP on this thread seem to be . . . of an entirely different mind about it . . . to put it mildly.

www.abovetopsecret.com...




Is it too outlandish to state that with a control of what we say, they are trying to control how we think?


ABSOLUTELY INDEED. EXACTLY SO. DELIBERATELY.

And they have been overwhelmingly successful the last 60+ years . . . their psych-ops and mass communications propaganda machines; their control of the education system etc. has insured their success in controlling our thoughts by their sanctions against disapproved speech and words and their multiplicity of exemplifying and promulgating their desired word choices and thoughts.

What hideousness.

edit on 7/12/2013 by BO XIAN because: Added



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 08:18 PM
link   

kaylaluv

Advantage

kaylaluv

Advantage



You're absolutely right, its even more than simply a house with an implied agreement for your behavior while in the house. Here on ATS you actually agree to certain things before you are allowed to have an account and enter into conversations. I guess there is even less of an excuse for asinine behavior since surely you read what you agree to, right?


But should ATS be allowed to restrict what we say on such a public forum, when our speech here is truly public, and not private in any way?


ABSOLUTELY. Its an owned site. Privately owned.


So you're saying that public speech SHOULD be allowed to be restricted to avoid being offensive. I agree.


This isnt public speech. Its a forum. A privately owned forum. You KNOW this. I think youre confused about the 2 concepts.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Advantage

kaylaluv

Advantage

kaylaluv

Advantage



You're absolutely right, its even more than simply a house with an implied agreement for your behavior while in the house. Here on ATS you actually agree to certain things before you are allowed to have an account and enter into conversations. I guess there is even less of an excuse for asinine behavior since surely you read what you agree to, right?


But should ATS be allowed to restrict what we say on such a public forum, when our speech here is truly public, and not private in any way?


ABSOLUTELY. Its an owned site. Privately owned.


So you're saying that public speech SHOULD be allowed to be restricted to avoid being offensive. I agree.


This isnt public speech. Its a forum. A privately owned forum. You KNOW this. I think youre confused about the 2 concepts.


It IS public speech. What we write can be seen by everyone on this planet (who can access the internet). I don't know how you can get more public than that. It may be a privately owned forum, but it isn't a private forum - what we write is very public.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 08:49 PM
link   

kaylaluv

Advantage

kaylaluv

Advantage

kaylaluv

Advantage



You're absolutely right, its even more than simply a house with an implied agreement for your behavior while in the house. Here on ATS you actually agree to certain things before you are allowed to have an account and enter into conversations. I guess there is even less of an excuse for asinine behavior since surely you read what you agree to, right?


But should ATS be allowed to restrict what we say on such a public forum, when our speech here is truly public, and not private in any way?


ABSOLUTELY. Its an owned site. Privately owned.


So you're saying that public speech SHOULD be allowed to be restricted to avoid being offensive. I agree.


This isnt public speech. Its a forum. A privately owned forum. You KNOW this. I think youre confused about the 2 concepts.


It IS public speech. What we write can be seen by everyone on this planet (who can access the internet). I don't know how you can get more public than that. It may be a privately owned forum, but it isn't a private forum - what we write is very public.



NO ONE is forced to read what is here.
Youre also mixing several topics and are pretending you have not really grasped the whole offensive speech VS dangerous speech issue in the OP.

This really cant be explained any more simply. You are not a child and you know the differences in the concepts we are speaking about on this thread. You brought in "free speech" concerning a privately owned site. You were given the answer. WHen it did not go your way, you changed to equating offensive speech to free speech to dangerous speech. It really has nothing to do with the OP.. or each with one another. To mix them all together and pretend you dont understand is disingenuous. Not to mention argumentive for no real reason I can understand.


You win. Youre right and ATS is horrible for expecting you or anyone to abide by rules of an owned site.. and the internet is real life, and hate speech is the same as offensive or dangerous or free speech. I mean, they all have SPEECH in the term so I guess they're all the same. You win.
I will gladly go express my tightly controlled (by a freedom of speech hating, megalomaniacal, narcissistic, dictator person who dares to own this site and literally forced me to agree to the TOS so I could babble away on a FREE forum.. who likens himself to the trinity : 3 Amigos and all that stuff) feelings concerning Westboro on another thread. Carry on.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 08:49 PM
link   

kaylaluv

Advantage

kaylaluv

Advantage

kaylaluv

Advantage



You're absolutely right, its even more than simply a house with an implied agreement for your behavior while in the house. Here on ATS you actually agree to certain things before you are allowed to have an account and enter into conversations. I guess there is even less of an excuse for asinine behavior since surely you read what you agree to, right?


But should ATS be allowed to restrict what we say on such a public forum, when our speech here is truly public, and not private in any way?


ABSOLUTELY. Its an owned site. Privately owned.


So you're saying that public speech SHOULD be allowed to be restricted to avoid being offensive. I agree.


This isnt public speech. Its a forum. A privately owned forum. You KNOW this. I think youre confused about the 2 concepts.


It IS public speech. What we write can be seen by everyone on this planet (who can access the internet). I don't know how you can get more public than that. It may be a privately owned forum, but it isn't a private forum - what we write is very public.


It is a private forum that is available for public viewing but not for public participation.
To PARTICIPATE you make a clear agreement to restrict your behavior.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


In my opinion, this entire resolution is a clear example of offensive speech.

It would be comical if it wasn't so sad & pathetic. I guess it's lucky for me that words fail me in this instance, and that I am not a student of that esteemed institution...



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Advantage
 


I wasn't even thinking about dangerous speech, nor did I ever write the words "dangerous speech". I'm talking about offensive speech, as in the title of the OP.


Did you ever wonder why ATS has the rules they do about what we're allowed to say? I'm talking about their rules to not call names, or bash certain races of people, or bash innocent victims of horrible circumstances. These rules are to stop offensive speech, because people who have access to these posts might get offended. These are good rules, no? If you agree that they are good rules, then why are the same rules not good everywhere? Everyone is up in arms about the student government of this university not wanting fellow students to be offensive in their speeches, as if this is a terrible thing to promote respectfulness and decorum. They aren't going to put anyone in "university jail", or shoot them, or electrocute them, or take all their assets away. They are just reminding everyone to consider the affect of the words they say.

And with that, I'm done.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Sticks and stones may break my bones but your offensive words can never hurt me.

We were all taught that when we were all just little kids, but as we grow up I guess some people forgot that and have to come up with crap like this, and even then what is considered offensive is always changing too.

These people that try to make new rules or have to find a reason to anythig offensive, incorrect, unsafe, unfair,ect.. need to get a life of their own and just stay the hell out of everyone elses.
edit on 711u12 by JHumm because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 01:21 AM
link   
This can be a double edged sword. It can be a good thing to encourage inclusion. On the other hand, it's very, very easy to take such things to the point where they start calling differing opinions as offensive. It's how we get a situation where disagreeing with liberals automatically gets you branded as a racist or a sexist or the allegation that you hate the poor. Pointing out alternatives, differing opinions, or facts that don't meet the narrative are considered "offensive" and banned.

There is a clear line in the minds of a reasonable human being between derogatory, filthy idea and names and then ideas that are simply unpleasant or that one doesn't agree with. The problem is that there are sects of both sides of the political isle that do not like this.

On the left, if you don't agree with ideas like the patriarchy and Affirmative Action, then you're a racist or a sexist. On the right, if you so much as hint that you're not a Christian or don't say "Merry Christmas", you're anti-religious.



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 05:25 AM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by Nyiah
 


I hope that it loses steam. But the fact that it is even enacted worries me.

And it should be inclusive, remember that.

instead of arthritic, geezer, it should be "joint-disadvantaged, and youthfully challenged".
Excuse me but as a "joint-disadvantaged, and youthfully challenged" person I am offended by your blatant use of those terms! LOL



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 05:55 AM
link   

kaylaluv

badgerprints

kaylaluv
This isn't a house. This is the internet. People from all over the world can view what we have written here. This isn't some private home, where it's just a couple of people and the owner.


A "house" is an apt analogy for the home or meeting place of a specific group with specific membership.

The content of this site is accessible to anybody but participation is not.

There are rules that must be agreed to in order to join and participate.



My point was, it's not just the owner that sees what we write. The owners aren't just worried about their own sensitivity, as they would be in their own home. The owners are concerned about all the people reading our posts. It's a very "public" house, therefore our speech is public. Should our public speech be restricted, as it is on this site?
This is a that can be read by the public, however, ATS's owner is basically endorsing what is being said. Sort of like a building contractor who is endorsing the work of his crew. If there is a problem who is responsible?



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Yeah they shouldn't ban 'offensive language' they should just take a page from 'real government'.

Fine people, and make a lot of money at it and write tickets.

3 strikes, and you end up in university jail, and the student body be forced to pay for their stay. and 're-educate' the 'offenders'.

Whoops never mind that sounds too much like real life.
edit on 8-12-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   

badgerprints

Maybe I should just feel mildly nonplussed and defer to the wisdom of the kids who just reinvented censorship for the millionth time in history.



If it wasn't so true it would be a lot funnier. It's actually just sad. It seems like the younger generation today is doing this kind of thing everywhere. Gleefully. So far it looks like it's mostly going to hit the next generation the hardest. I frankly will just consider myself lucky if it barely affects me. I've spent too much time arguing with these fools. They're determined to take the road to hell. I say let them. People have to learn the hard way.

The thing about having your rights protected by nothing more than a piece of paper is that they will only be safe for as long as people respect them. When the majority decides you don't have any rights anymore, a piece of paper isn't going to stop them.
edit on 8-12-2013 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Advantage

kaylaluv

Advantage



You're absolutely right, its even more than simply a house with an implied agreement for your behavior while in the house. Here on ATS you actually agree to certain things before you are allowed to have an account and enter into conversations. I guess there is even less of an excuse for asinine behavior since surely you read what you agree to, right?


But should ATS be allowed to restrict what we say on such a public forum, when our speech here is truly public, and not private in any way?


ABSOLUTELY. Its an owned site. Privately owned.


This is generally true and it was all well and good when people made the necessary distinctions. People today would support real censorship anywhere because they simply hate freedom and believe free speech is a bad thing. They don't care what the context is. They will censor anywhere and everywhere they can make an excuse for it. Even though the wise thing to do would probably be to respect the spirit of freedom even if you don't have to.
edit on 8-12-2013 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
20
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join