Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

If I don't subscribe to your ideology, and can force ATS to ban you, is that right?

page: 1
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:20 AM
link   
This is a thread dedicated to a question that I just got a couple of replies from, but hope to end this whole Duck Dynasty issue.

A couple of caveats.

Did Phil Robertson say something that he believes in?
Yes.

Did A&E have the freedom to fire him?
Yes.

Now answer the question that is the title of the thread.

Of course I have no power to control ATS to ban anyone.

But this speaks to the free exchange of ideas. Does that still exist?

I look forward to the answers.

beez




posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:27 AM
link   
Yes, I believe it would be right. Not because it's good or even the right thing to do, but whatever someone does with their own web content is right.

Now, if I were able to ban you from your own site, because I didn't agree with your ideology, that would be wrong..as long as we are talking content that is inside of the law.

Edit:

I realize this wasn't what you were really getting at, you were talking ethics not semantics.

To address your actual point, no I don't believe in stifling the opinions of others, just because one does not agree with them. I would much rather know where people stand, and what they think, than have the PC-police bully everyone into a corner of silence, hypocrisy, and being disingenuous.
edit on 22-12-2013 by maus80 because: addition



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by maus80
 


So do don't believe in free speech. You just believe in speech that coincides with your ideology?


+14 more 
posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:30 AM
link   
No ducking way is it right IMO.

Just because you *can* do something, it doesn't mean that you *should* do something.

They did have every right to terminate Phil no doubt, but it wasn't right to cave into bullying tactics by a group that begs for tolerance daily yet wants to give none when they disagree with the opposing side's ideology.

Having the right to do it and it being the right thing to do are indeed 2 different things and I think people are missing that point.
edit on 12/22/2013 by Kangaruex4Ewe because: (no reason given)


+2 more 
posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:32 AM
link   
I'm sure ATS has banned members for espousing ideologies other members have complained about, if those ideologies also go against ATS T&C.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe
 


Agreed. I don't have an issue with A&E. If they want to be a spineless company, then that is their right.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:33 AM
link   

woodwardjnr
I'm sure ATS has banned members for espousing ideologies other members have complained about, if those ideologies also go against ATS T&C.


T&C is a universal rule that we all obey.

I'm curious if complaints and requests for banning have ever come up based solely on ideology.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:34 AM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by maus80
 


So do don't believe in free speech. You just believe in speech that coincides with your ideology?


I believe in free speech, as protected by the constitution. Meaning I believe nobody should be prosecuted by government for what they say. What private content owners do and do not allow is totally up to them though, as is what they do with that content - I believe equally that these rights should be protected.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



ATS membership is voluntary and dependent upon a potential member agreeing to comply with the ATS rules/standards- this gives ATS the RIGHT (morally, ethically, legally) to unleash the banhammer when it sees fit.
If a member does not like it, well tough poopy.
Go somewhere else.

That's the beauty of the free market.

GOVERNMENT ON THE OTHER HAND....



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:36 AM
link   

beezzer
I'm curious if complaints and requests for banning have ever come up based solely on ideology.


Yes, constantly, and in large amounts. As a mod of various forums in the 90's, I can attest.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:37 AM
link   

maus80

beezzer
reply to post by maus80
 


So do don't believe in free speech. You just believe in speech that coincides with your ideology?


I believe in free speech, as protected by the constitution. Meaning I believe nobody should be prosecuted by government for what they say. What private content owners do and do not allow is totally up to them though, as is what they do with that content - I believe equally that these rights should be protected.


Yet you feel that Phil Robertson should be punished by expressing his free speech.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:38 AM
link   

maus80

beezzer
I'm curious if complaints and requests for banning have ever come up based solely on ideology.


Yes, constantly, and in large amounts. As a mod of various forums in the 90's, I can attest.


So people who espouse free speech on a variety of forums are hypocrites?



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:39 AM
link   

ltinycdancerg
reply to post by beezzer
 



ATS membership is voluntary and dependent upon a potential member agreeing to comply with the ATS rules/standards- this gives ATS the RIGHT (morally, ethically, legally) to unleash the banhammer when it sees fit.
If a member does not like it, well tough poopy.
Go somewhere else.

That's the beauty of the free market.

GOVERNMENT ON THE OTHER HAND....


Your avatar has a black dress. I disagree with that.

*ban*

(wink)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:42 AM
link   

beezzer

maus80

beezzer
reply to post by maus80
 


So do don't believe in free speech. You just believe in speech that coincides with your ideology?


I believe in free speech, as protected by the constitution. Meaning I believe nobody should be prosecuted by government for what they say. What private content owners do and do not allow is totally up to them though, as is what they do with that content - I believe equally that these rights should be protected.


Yet you feel that Phil Robertson should be punished by expressing his free speech.


This is argument based on assumption, which I dislike. I never said he should be punished. I do believe Termination Rights in legal contracts are just. I also believe you should be allowed to fire someone because you don't like their new haircut, if that's what you want. If anything I am for MORE freedom than law currently allows.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:43 AM
link   
I complained to mods about a member who made a celebratory post about the death of victims of Andres Brevik. The member was soon banned. Was that due to my complaint? Am I anti free speech for making a complaint?



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by maus80
 


Point. Phil had the interview with GQ mag months ago.
Point. A&E knew about it.
Point. They did nothing.
Point. GLADD complained once the interview became public.
Point. GLAAD called A&E.
Point. Shortly afterwards, A&E canceled Phil.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:46 AM
link   
If we allow free speech to be impeded on, it will recourse into full blown state silence.

I am not a person in charge, control or a handler of anyone. That being said, everyone needs to put a stop to this nonsense.

You have a lot of power, stop watching the channel. Talk to your friends. Make it a team building exercise.


+4 more 
posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:46 AM
link   
As I'm always want to say when anyone pulls out the "Free Speech" flag and starts waving it around; Free Speech in a private venue such as ATS exists only upon the good graces and tolerance of the Owners, and those entrusted to enforce Moderation.

In a private venue, free speech is an illusion extended by courtesy and tolerance of the Host.

If I don't like what you say or express in or on my own private and personal property, I'm fully within my rights to ask you to leave and even have you expelled forcibly as well as barring you from ever returning.

Please note, the use of "you" is in terms of the Magestic Plural and refers to no singular person, but an ambiguation of generalized personality.

Certainly, in public places, or government/public owned/controlled property, in Nations that have free speech, free speech/expression is upheld (within reason).
It, however, is not free speech/expression in totality.
True Free Speech does not exist and will not be tolerated by anyone.

Reason for this being is, it's certainly popular for people to find vicious lies, libel, smears, and accusations intolerable. People in power certainly don't want to hear these.
More importantly, however, people hate the Truth even more, especially so when it deal with themselves, abuses of power, and all the fun stuff that goes on behind closed doors for the very reasons closed doors were invented to keep closed.

Thus, lies are managed and tolerated in the public so long as they don't do much important damage, and Truth is managed even tighter.

Free Speech?
It's a nice illusion.




posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:46 AM
link   

woodwardjnr
I complained to mods about a member who made a celebratory post about the death of victims of Andres Brevik. The member was soon banned. Was that due to my complaint? Am I anti free speech for making a complaint?


Was the ban a result of your complaint?



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 

Are they really being forced or are they going with what benefits them the most and saying that they were forced?

That is the detail which makes it seem like a bad thing.





new topics

top topics



 
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join