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: 2
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:47 AM
link   

beezzer
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.


Indeed. I think they will rue their mistake in the end. I really don't believe they were prepared for the amount of backlash they are now receiving... neither was GLAAD it seems.

A hornet's nest if ever there was one.




posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I wish people would have this much dedication to free speech when it comes to people who actually have something important to say rather than some reality TV rube just running his mouth. There are many, many voices that never have a snowball's chance in hell of getting on corporate TV in the first place. Is that "right?" Who cares about a Kardashian nose job or what a duck whistle hustler has to say in the first place.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


lol oh you


actually its a leotard and tutu, not a dress- and that is a real photo of me- it complies with ATS's rules (the pic I originally wanted to use was denied b/c it was "too revealing") so I've had first hand experience with this particular issue.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Ok, but I don't really get your point. If the guys at A&E terminated the contract because they believed some clouds in the sky were spelling out the words "Fire Phil", I would believe that was their right - especially if absolute termination rights were in their contract.

Is your argument that absolute termination rights in legal contracts should be banned, because some reasons for executing them might be questionable?



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 


reply to post by litterbaux
 


Imagine ATS if only a prescribed ideology were allowed.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:52 AM
link   

DelMarvel
reply to post by beezzer
 


I wish people would have this much dedication to free speech when it comes to people who actually have something important to say rather than some reality TV rube just running his mouth. There are many, many voices that never have a snowball's chance in hell of getting on corporate TV in the first place. Is that "right?" Who cares about a Kardashian nose job or what a duck whistle hustler has to say in the first place.


Whether it's Duck Dynasty or an OWS rally, free speech should be universal.

In my humble opinion.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:53 AM
link   

maus80
reply to post by beezzer
 


Ok, but I don't really get your point. If the guys at A&E terminated the contract because they believed some clouds in the sky were spelling out the words "Fire Phil", I would believe that was their right - especially if absolute termination rights were in their contract.

Is your argument that absolute termination rights in legal contracts should be banned, because some reasons for executing them might be questionable?


A&E didn't fire Phil because of what he said.

A&E fired Phil because it upset GLAAD, who threatened A&E based on what he said.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:55 AM
link   

ltinycdancerg
reply to post by beezzer
 


lol oh you


actually its a leotard and tutu, not a dress- and that is a real photo of me- it complies with ATS's rules (the pic I originally wanted to use was denied b/c it was "too revealing") so I've had first hand experience with this particular issue.


double ban for naughty clothing!!!

lolz



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 

Threatened or alerted?

It makes a difference.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:59 AM
link   

daskakik
reply to post by beezzer
 

Threatened or alerted?

It makes a difference.


You're obfuscating.

Either you believe in freedom of speech or you don't.

There is no grey area here.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:00 AM
link   

DelMarvel
reply to post by beezzer
 

Who cares about a Kardashian nose job or what a duck whistle hustler has to say in the first place.


That's kind of the whole point. Who should care? Nobody cared at all until the shiite hit the fan from GLAAD's corner. There would have never been a post about it if not for that. Somebody had to trot the interview out (scream for an end to another's opinion) so they could spread the "offensiveness" far and wide in hopes of doing exactly what they have succeeded in doing.

Now it has become a free speech issue to many and that is important.
edit on 12/22/2013 by Kangaruex4Ewe because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 

Not when private matters come into play.

Confidentiality agreements being one example.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:06 AM
link   

daskakik
reply to post by beezzer
 

Not when private matters come into play.

Confidentiality agreements being one example.


So your answer is no.

Free speech is not an option. Okay.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:08 AM
link   

beezzer
So your answer is no.

Free speech is not an option. Okay.

It isn't just my answer, it is the truth.

In private matters you can sign away your right to free speech.
edit on 22-12-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:08 AM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 


reply to post by litterbaux
 


Imagine ATS if only a prescribed ideology were allowed.


I wouldn't have anyone to argue with!
i wouldn't subscribe my patronage to any venue intolerant of diverse conflicting views and voices.

If I wanted to sit around and agree with someone all day long, I'd only talk to myself, or surround myself with sycophants.
Too many undervalue conflict and contradiction.




posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:12 AM
link   

daskakik

beezzer
So your answer is no.

Free speech is not an option. Okay.

It isn't just my answer, it is the truth.

In private matters you can sign away your right to free speech.
edit on 22-12-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)


You're changing the goal posts and adding caveats of your own.

If you don't agree with the idea of freedom of speech, that is your right.

I will defend speech even if I don't agree with the message.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I personally believe that the owners of such a website should be free to ban whomever for whatever reason.
I also wouldn't feel it is stifling free speech to do so and you are free to start your own website.

I believe that A&E were right do sack Robertson, not because I or anybody else disagreed with him but because they did.


Before somebody accuses me of only being of this persuasion when it meets up with my opinions, I was strongly against the ruling that forced the B&B owners to allow a gay couple to stay.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 

I'm not moving goal posts. I'm reminding you that T&C are common in private contracts and that this creates a grey area where you claim one doesn't exist.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:20 AM
link   

daskakik
reply to post by beezzer
 

I'm not moving goal posts. I'm reminding you that T&C are common in private contracts and that this creates a grey area where you claim one doesn't exist.


It's a simple answer.

Yes or no.

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

One word.

That's all.

One simple word.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by b14warrior
 


So you don't believe in freedom of speech?



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join