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.

 

Cuomo signs bill banning sale of Confederate flags

page: 6
39
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2020 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Lucidparadox

You're special, aren't ya?

SCOTUS in 2011 ruled that Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist assholes couldn't be barred from speaking and demonstrating on public land, no matter how offensive, outrageous, or inflammatory their speeches were.

Phelps is a world class ahole...but his rights are the same as everyone elses.

These jackasses will ban the bat symbol next.

F NY



posted on Dec, 16 2020 @ 08:52 PM
link   
This is stupid.



State Sen. Alessandra Biaggi, who introduced the bill, said in a statement that the legislation's passage sends a strong message of tolerance to the rest of the country.


ABC

Only an extremist nutbag could claim that trampling the Constitution is actually showing "tolerance."

The Constitution is quite clear on this point. Don't like it, don't look at it.

It'll be struck down and should be.

I'll go a bit further. IF we do not protect Americans who are White Supremacists and Nazis, as despicable as we may find those philosophies, then we are no better than what we say we oppose. I am against violence from White Supremacists, Nazis, ANTIFA and BLM, Baptists, Unitarians, Gay Handicapped Buddhists.

Hate speech is a vile concept.

edit on 16-12-2020 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2020 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Freedom is slavery, war is peace. . . kinda the authoritarian mantra.



posted on Dec, 16 2020 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gryphon66

Freedom is slavery, war is peace. . . kinda the authoritarian mantra.


Bingo bango.



posted on Dec, 16 2020 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
I tip my cap to you.
Well posted.





posted on Dec, 16 2020 @ 09:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: DBCowboy

OK. I’m confused. How does this possibly clash with the 1st amendment?

It isn’t regulating a religion.
It isn’t stopping anyone exercising any religion.
It isn’t stopping free speech.
It’s not stopping the freedom of the press.
It’s not stopping the freedom of assembly.
It’s not stopping anyone petitioning the government.

While I think it’s a dumb thing to do (why would anyone want to stop anyone buying something, is beyond me), it doesn’t appear to clash with the 1st.

One has to be a US citizen and learned in the US Constitution to understand
Nuff Said.



posted on Dec, 16 2020 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm still amazed that people still don't understand what Libertarianism means.

"Ooo, you no like Cheeto Jesus, must mean you hate First Amendment too. Reeeeee!"

And some are still 4th grade maturity level who feel that calling folks names is cool.
Nuff Said



posted on Dec, 16 2020 @ 09:23 PM
link   
This one's a no-brainer:

Villlage of Skokie vs. National Socialist Party of America




"The constitutional right of free expression is powerful medicine in a society as diverse and populous as ours. It is designed and intended to remove governmental restraints from the arena of public discussion, putting the decision as to what views shall be voiced largely into the hands of each of us, in the hope that use of such freedom will ultimately produce a more capable citizenry and more perfect polity and in the belief that no other approach would comport with the premise of individual dignity and choice upon which our political system rests. See Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375-377 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring).





Thus by placing the burden upon the viewer to avoid further bombardment, the Supreme Court has permitted speakers to justify the initial intrusion into the citizen's sensibilities.

We accordingly, albeit reluctantly, conclude that the display of the swastika cannot be enjoined under the fighting-words exception to free speech, nor can anticipation of a hostile audience justify the prior restraint. Furthermore, Cohen and Erznoznik direct the citizens of Skokie that it is their burden to avoid the offensive symbol if they can do so without unreasonable inconvenience.



posted on Dec, 16 2020 @ 09:25 PM
link   
BTW, this law is nothing more than an attempt to strengthen precedent for expanding "hate speech" into whatever one group or another doesn't like.

It's repugnant.



posted on Dec, 16 2020 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
BTW, this law is nothing more than an attempt to strengthen precedent for expanding "hate speech" into whatever one group or another doesn't like.

It's repugnant.


Well if people are offended by the "red, white and blue" then you could be banned for displaying the nations flag.



posted on Dec, 16 2020 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: DBCowboy


People can't sell them


OK? I guess all the non state property stores and stalls are owned by cats?


Now you just post stuff that looks like a retard made them.


OWN IT.

Yopu support censorship.

Obviously.


You’re going to have to type even slower for our logically impaired, even still, it’s probably not going to be slow enough.



posted on Dec, 16 2020 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Well, he better start with the flags at the U.N.
Ya know, ones like the U.A.E. Iran, and let's add the U.K in there too. I mean they had a huge empire that invaded countries and subjugated the people thereof, so fair is fair, right ?

Nah, let's just focus on the South, because, feelz.



posted on Dec, 16 2020 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

If you don't want a Nazi flag, don't buy one.

Minding our own business immediately solves 99% of all of these manufactured problems.



posted on Dec, 16 2020 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: DBCowboy

If you don't want a Nazi flag, don't buy one.

Minding our own business immediately solves 99% of all of these manufactured problems.


I'm still trying to figure our the manditory purchase of items people find offensive.



posted on Dec, 16 2020 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Sit tight.
Joe and Kamala will be putting out a list any day now.
With help from A.O.C of course.



posted on Dec, 16 2020 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64

My best hope for Biden is that he keeps his promises about rebuilding infrastructure and doesn't start another war.

He's in the pockets of the corporatists. Hopefully he will be as dull as Obama was.



posted on Dec, 16 2020 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I honestly don't get the pure hatred for Trump. I didn't like Obama because of his policies, but I liked Clinton.
[ No, I didn't care if he was "playing with cigars" in the Oval Office.]
Also didn't care much about Bush, 1 or 2 .

With the way Biden and Harris are going to steer the economy, it's like me saying I'm mad at my neighbor so I'm going to burn my house down.



posted on Dec, 16 2020 @ 10:55 PM
link   
as long as the ban if for public property, i have no problem with this.

after all, the confederacy did commit treason, and they lost.

however, my reasoning is this. public property is for the public, and should therefore be the most benign, boring part of anything. there is only one u.s. flag, one constitution. those are the only thing that public land should put forth.



posted on Dec, 16 2020 @ 11:19 PM
link   
As Tim Taylor would have said, "Whoa, back the truck up!" A few years back, didn't we just go through the debacle of people burning American flags? And weren't they allowed to continue doing so because it was deemed they were only employing their "freedom of speech?" If a flag can used as part of your freedom of speech, how should you be allowed to limit any person's freedom of speech by outlawing only "certain" flags? Wouldn't (or shouldn't) freedom of speech include any flag?

But, that's always how it starts. Introduce a law that only has perceived "good" intentions to get everybody on board, then ramp up the definition of what that law "actually" means and entails. It's being done all the time these days. You can't deny that.


TCB



posted on Dec, 16 2020 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Now that is a sentiment I can fully support!!!

If I choose to fly the stars and bars in honor of ancestors of mine who fought, I assume, bravely at Gettysburg, or Cold Harbor that's my business.

a reply to: underwerks

It's an indication only of what you're reading into it, nothing more.




top topics



 
39
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join