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.

 

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

page: 12
20
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


No




posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 11:43 AM
link   

buster2010
If a person is against religion it's because of hate? Nothing breeds hate more than religion.


Actually, your HATE of religion (and particularly an inaccurate homogenization of Christianity) is extremely transparent to anyone on ATS with an IQ above freezing and discernment sufficient to tell the difference between salt and pepper.

. . . as is the cause . . .

Therefore, the OP's question is particularly apt in terms of folks like you. You seem quite ready to squash and shred all who disagree with you on such matters.
.


edit on 22/12/2013 by BO XIAN because: left part out



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


If ATS wants to ban people because they disagree with their ideologies, that is their prerogative. We may not agree with their actions, but the owner's of the site have the right to make that decision.

If A&E wants to get rid of Phil because they disagree with his views, it would be their right to do so as the owners of the show.

Phil can find other mediums to express his views. There are many. He can start his own television network. He can start his own show. He can move to a network that would be more sympathetic to his views. He could use a different medium like writing books and publishing them, or creating his own website to submit his own articles on. He could even make video documentaries for the web. The possibilities for expression are endless.

In all of those instances he would have absolute, sole-right over the content. Problem solved. That's really the issue--ownership--not freedom of speech. His right to express his views has not been infringed.

And to answer your question:


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


If, hypothetically, you were the owner of ATS, then yes, that is absolutely right.
If the owners agreed with you and also wanted to ban someone for ideological differences, that is right.

If we don't like it, we can start our own website, because free markets kick-a$$ that way.
edit on 22-12-2013 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


What I'm about to say isn't really aimed towards the whole Duck Dynasty issue, but it does fall under it. So keep that in mind as you read the following.

As a social species, we're often herded into the same thought process because it's "main stream". Yes, even on ATS I see this constantly when it comes to aliens, ghosts, spirituality and a slew of other topics. You'll have the main group of people froth at the mouth because someone says something they don't agree with. Political correctness also plays a major role in this.

But when do we realize that even though a subject may be frowned upon, that it might still warrant discussion? When do we cast aside what we've been taught and look at things in a new perspective? Or when do we realize that just because a topic is taboo or politically incorrect, that there might be something worthy of discussion in it?

If we simply ban what we don't like, we're potentially turning a huge blind eye to something important.

We're all guided into a single thought process, through TV and books. Through our parents and school, and of course through our friends. Some of it's intentional, some of it isn't. And if we're going to have a knee jerk reaction to everything without any rational thought (which I've seen MANY times here on ATS unfortunately) we're going to be kept in the dark. And the truths that could have set us free, can't.

As for ATS, it's a privately owned company. This isn't a public space where freedom of speech adheres. This is someones home, they own their home and it's their right to allow or disallow certain discussions. As for banning people with a different opinion, I think that's rather childish. I ran an outdoorsman forum for quite a while. I had certified Neo Nazi's, Black Panthers, and man hating feminists posting. And I welcomed them all as long as their opinions on those subjects stayed OFF the forum. The minute they started posting their whacked out beliefs, it was time for them to go. (ATS is a little different as this is a conspiracy forum and some of that stuff may fall under it. It's a tough line to walk and moderate.)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   

LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by beezzer
 


If ATS wants to ban people because they disagree with their ideologies, that is their prerogative. We may not agree with their actions, but the owner's of the site have the right to make that decision.

If A&E wants to get rid of Phil because they disagree with his views, it would be their right to do so as the owners of the show.

Phil can find other mediums to express his views. There are many. He can start his own television network. He can start his own show. He can move to a network that would be more sympathetic to his views. He could use a different medium like writing books and publishing them, or creating his own website to submit his own articles on. He could even make video documentaries for the web. The possibilities for expression are endless.

In all of those instances he would have absolute, sole-right over the content. Problem solved. That's really the issue--ownership--not freedom of speech. His right to express his views has not been infringed.


But hypothetically what if we come to the point where the FCC wont give license for a new network? a new show? no network will accept a person based on their views contrary to their accepted views. No publisher or website will carry a book. And if things progress no website will be given due to new federal regulations on internet usage. And of course no medium provided in which to sell videos.

Are we really so far from this becoming reality? ATS is a business but so are the rest of these mediums. none of them are required to give a forum from which someone can share their views. If one can ban you any can ban you.

But there will always be that fenced in area where you can scream away to your hearts content and that fence will listen attentively.
edit on 22-12-2013 by WWJFKD because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   

beezzer
Imagine ATS if only a prescribed ideology were allowed.


It used to be MUCH MORE that way the first few years. The liberal dogma was extremely dogmatic and deviations from it caught the wrath of fierce dogpiles of orthodox liberal high priests and acolytes.

Now there's much more robust give and take with much more civility. Cheers for that.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by WWJFKD
 



But hypothetically what if we come to the point where the FCC wont give license for a new network? a new show? no network will accept a person based on their views contrary to their accepted views. No publisher or website will carry a book. And if things progress no website will be given due to new federal regulations on internet usage. And of course no medium provided in which to sell videos.


And all of those things transpire because of government interference.

People, especially in the US, should not need a license to start a network in the first play. Something cannot be a right and a privilege at the same time. It is either one or the other. If an activity is a right, the concept of getting licensed for it is absurd. The FCC overseeing who gets a license and who doesn't is the bigger problem.

If one television network refuses to take you because they disagree with your views, it is their right to do so. Go to a different network. If no network will take you, start your own.

The same goes for publishing companies and websites. Then you get to make the business that wouldn't take you, compete with you. And in that instance, you would not be in a "fenced in area." You would have access to the same viewers as everyone else.


Are we really so far from this becoming reality? ATS is a business but so are the rest of these mediums. none of them are required to give a forum from which someone can share their views. If one can ban you any can ban you.


Um, yes, and it should be this way. The owner should always have absolute say in their business. If a forum bans you, start your own. It really isn't that hard to do.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Idealism Is great, but Phil and the ducks live and work in a right-to-work state, and A&E can choose to fire him for just about anything.

The question is: should they? I mean - he is / was making them money, right? I think an argument can be made that it is fiduciarily irresponsible of the board at A&E, Hearst and Disney to jeopardize that particular revenue stream for their shareholders.

I mean, rules are rules, right?



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


NO. imho, it's NOT right.

imho, it has happened a fair amount--particularly in the early years.

I don't notice it much, now. Yea for that.

Still, there can be almost instantaneous dogpiles trying to intimidate folks into silence from voicing NON-P-C perspectives . . . or to irritate them & bait them to the point of getting themselves banned.

I don't think that's "right" either but policing those nuances would be a nightmare, I'd think.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 12:58 PM
link   

0zzymand0s
reply to post by beezzer
 


Idealism Is great, but Phil and the ducks live and work in a right-to-work state, and A&E can choose to fire him for just about anything.

The question is: should they? I mean - he is / was making them money, right? I think an argument can be made that it is fiduciarily irresponsible of the board at A&E, Hearst and Disney to jeopardize that particular revenue stream for their shareholders.

I mean, rules are rules, right?


I think A&E knew that they were going to lose money either way: fire Phil and lose the revenue of the show (merchandising, etc.), or keep Phil and face losing sponsors. They either did a cost analysis and decided they would lose less money in the long run by dropping Phil, or maybe, and I admit this is a small possibility - but just maybe, they decided to actually act according to their conscience, and not according to the bottom line.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Apparently you could, but is it right....NO...having been just banned in the past few weeks...and they can read anything into whatever they want and will, even if you're decidedly pointing out somebody's one-sided remarks by irony and sarcasm.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 01:08 PM
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?


That's what it's all about, anybody trying to point out common sense if you're being targeted, they will.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   


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





edit on 22-12-2013 by WWJFKD because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by WWJFKD
 


Is that another nail in my coffin or hitting the nail on the head? Apparently I am dense today.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


It was the latter!

edit on 22-12-2013 by WWJFKD because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Thanks for all the replies, good and bad.

When this issue (Duck Dynasty) first arose, many ignored it or scoffed because they felt it was unimportant.

But I think free speech is very important and this event created the oppourtunity to open many dialogues abut it.

I'm going to paraphrase George Will's take on it. We have laws to protect our property. We have laws to protect our lives. Do we need laws to protect our feelings?
If we have to constantly assume that what we say will offend someone, then it will create a very silent place.

I think we need to start hurting some feelings. We need to open up, not shut up. Communication is vital to a society. If communication is curtailed because of PC or hurt feelings, it limits us as a whole.


On the lighter side, those that were under the impression that I was a mod? Never gonna happen. (I don't want the skull probes) lol



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


As much as it pains me to say, because I positively HATE THE SHOW and honestly prayed for it's demise (SORRY) I do agree with you he absolutely has the right to his views, and people are welcome to either watch or not watch the show based upon or not based upon those facts. They have no right to kick him off for his views, I even stated to others why do they show all of Tom Cruise's movies & they should stop showing them cause his views (Scientology) Are retarded and I really don't want someone that nuts on my TV. I think at least that's a decent reason to keep someone off the airways, cults are really bad for the world (Heaven's Gate anyone). But I digress. The main point is he's entitled to his views and not to be discriminated against because of his views.

Like I said his views do not determine whether I would watch the show, as I have already stated I just don't like the show, and that will remain to be true, regardless of his views.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


If a film had to pass a political ideology litmus test before I saw it, I'd never watch movies.

Opinions are like elbows, everyone has them. And good or bad, we should never inhibit, limit, curtail, punish, speech.

If we did that, we'd never know who the idiots were!



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Tarzan the apeman.
reply to post by beezzer
 


No


Beautifully put



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


If a film had to pass a political ideology litmus test before I saw it, I'd never watch movies.

Opinions are like elbows, everyone has them. And good or bad, we should never inhibit, limit, curtail, punish, speech.

If we did that, we'd never know who the idiots were!


I agree with you, it was meant as a joke and I actually watch all Tom Cruise movies I just was pointing out the ridiculousness of them picking on the Duck Dynasty guy, by picking on a beloved movie star. Ha.




top topics



 
20
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join