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.
Ridiculous. I bet you could do the same with republicans banning liberals from radio and tv while saying they support the constitution.
Yup, and you'd get the same reaction from 'em; "that sounds hilarious, I'll sign it for the lulz" - which is exactly what everyone in the video does.
Know what's really funny, though? If this were real, then the people signing the petition are engaging in their right to free speech. if the station the petition went to (presumably the college station?) heard the petition and agreed, they are engaging in their right to free speech. Know who's right to free speech would not be involved one way or another in this? Glen Beck's. He maintains his right to free speech, even if a station decides it no longer wishes to carry his show.
Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Some of these replies make me think a few posters think that the right to speak is the same as the right to be heard
Yeah, I have to say that this entire story seems to confuse freedom of speech with freedom to have a 3 hour AM radio show daily. There is no constitutional right to airtime that I can find and it seems like signing a petition is as much free speech as anything else. I would kind of like to know when this shift happened. When did people first start defending other people's right to have a show on tv or radio because of free speech issues. I know that when I turn my radio off, Michael Savage continues to be free to talk.
Originally posted by mishigas
He's probably remembering that famous quote by Winston Churchill:
“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”
So we know that each of these people is a liberal because of a cute saying? Suddenly I feel like an idiot for asking for anything factual. I was only asking because I genuinely wanted to know.
I went to college in a very red are. The thing I noticed most about college kids though was that most had not even voted for a president. Most had no real party affiliation, just ideas. Where I went to school, most of the ideas I heard were pretty red. I was not looking to disprove or prove anything. I just do not like watching videos on ATS and being expected to just take everything they claim or is written about them at face value.
Originally posted by mishigas
You can believe whatever you want. You can ask dumb questions if you are that confused. You can put lie to the notion that "There are no dumb questions". As a matter of fact, there are such things.
He never stated that ALL signers were liberals. He merely inferred that willingness to sign the petition was typical behavior of hypocritical liberals. But you knew that, at least I hope you did. It's the same as knowing that all muslims are not terrorists, though most terrorists are muslims.
Originally posted by Vitchilo
Ridiculous. I bet you could do the same with republicans banning liberals from radio and tv while saying they support the constitution.
Originally posted by ZindoDoone
This is the second or third time this guy has put one over on the 'so called' enlightened student Liberal!
Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Vitchilo
Liberal college students are some of the dumbest people to have a conversation with.. sooo ... not very surprising. They just believe what the Professor tells them to. Monkey see, monkey do.
Originally posted by mishigas
Having a talk radio show is merely a form of expression, just as owning a newspaper or carrying a sign in a protest march, or marching in a protest march.
And I'd be very surprised if airtime was mentioned in the Constitution, since Ben Franklin was only in the kite-flying phase of electricity when it was created... Your logic would support a Constitutional ban on flag burning, as an example.
You're making the mistake of equating a concept (freedom of expression) with a medium ( airtime, print, actions such as burning a flag, etc.).
Originally posted by links234
Apparently I have the right to free speech, where's my multi-million dollar radio show that I'm supposed to have?
Originally posted by mishigas
Having a talk radio show is merely a form of expression, just as owning a newspaper or carrying a sign in a protest march, or marching in a protest march.
I know what they are and you do not have a right to them. The right to speak is not the same as the right to have a newspaper or a radio show and I would hope you would know that.
And I'd be very surprised if airtime was mentioned in the Constitution, since Ben Franklin was only in the kite-flying phase of electricity when it was created... Your logic would support a Constitutional ban on flag burning, as an example.
Explain my logic to me then because you do not seem to be able to respond in a manner that fits with what was said. You can burn the flag all you want as far as I am concerned but you do not have the right to a one hour cable show where you do it.
Actually that seems to be what you are doing. You are trying to say that the right to free expression is the same as the right to an AM radio show. It is not.
Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by Antiquated1
*I* would hope that you would admit that I never said we had a right to a radio show.
So why are you saying that?
Oh I can respond just fine, thank you. You're just confused. I will try to explain again.
Once again I repeat: You're making the mistake of equating a concept (freedom of expression) with a medium ( airtime, print, actions such as burning a flag, etc.).
No, bunky, I never said that. One of them (freedom of expression) is a RIGHT and one of them (AM radio show) is a MEDIUM, i.e., means of expression. That's what I said, and I don't know how to explain it any clearer. If you know of a way, please tell me.
Thanks - good discussion.edit on 24-5-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by Antiquated1
You asked a pretty foolish question about my post. Simple answer is,logic, would dictate that very, very, few Conservatives would bother to sign ANY document like that. Secondly I never said 'ALL' college Student were liberal just the majority otherwise there wouldn't be such a large movement to silence any an all Conservative voices by and in academia today. Nearly every week we read how some administration does their best to shut down the conservative voices on campuses all over the country!
Zindo!
edit on 5/24/2011 by ZindoDoone because: (no reason given)
When did people first start defending other people's right to have a show on tv or radio because of free speech issues.
Yeah, I have to say that this entire story seems to confuse freedom of speech with freedom to have a 3 hour AM radio show daily. There is no constitutional right to airtime that I can find and it seems like signing a petition is as much free speech as anything else. I would kind of like to know when this shift happened. When did people first start defending other people's right to have a show on tv or radio because of free speech issues. I know that when I turn my radio off, Michael Savage continues to be free to talk.
Having a talk radio show is merely a form of expression, just as owning a newspaper or carrying a sign in a protest march, or marching in a protest march. And I'd be very surprised if airtime was mentioned in the Constitution, since Ben Franklin was only in the kite-flying phase of electricity when it was created... Your logic would support a Constitutional ban on flag burning, as an example.
You're making the mistake of equating a concept (freedom of expression) with a medium ( airtime, print, actions such as burning a flag, etc.)
Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by Antiquated1
This whole off-track discussion started when you said
When did people first start defending other people's right to have a show on tv or radio because of free speech issues.
That comment was so out of left field that it made absolutely no sense. *Nobody* said that or even inferred it, not here nor in the article. Maybe you just felt the need to state the obvious. But I tried to help you thru your confusion by explaining the issue to you. Then there was this you said:
Originally posted by Vitchilo
I don't think they know what freedom of speech means.
Originally posted by freedish
But I'm not about to go ban their freedom of speech.
Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
Students who support free speech want to ban an opposing viewpoint from speaking?
Hmm, they do not support true free speech then.