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

beezzer
My question was specific.

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

I didn't specify hate speech.
I didn't specify hospital bombs.
I didn't specify contracts.
I didn't specify networks.
I didn't specify physical characteristics.

Okay.

What ideology are you talking about ??

ltinycdancerg
I'm with George "When it comes to rights, I think one of two things is true. Either we have unlimited rights, or we have no rights at all. Personally, I believe we have unlimited rights. For instance, I feel I have the right to do anything I please, BUT, if I do something you don't like, I think you have the right to kill me. So where are you gonna find a fairer deal than that?"

Wonderful answer and I agree with you completely.

Even with your naughty outfits!

CranialSponge

beezzer
My question was specific.

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

I didn't specify hate speech.
I didn't specify hospital bombs.
I didn't specify contracts.
I didn't specify networks.
I didn't specify physical characteristics.

Okay.

What ideology are you talking about ??

Does it matter?

maus80
reply to post by beezzer

 

and btw beezzer, it's disappointing that you aren't willing to admit to your mistakes or learn from them. If you aren't, then there is no point to discussing things with people, other than to try to convince them that you are right when you aren't. It's a lot more useful to actually learn from those who provide you with truth.

Insults are fine.

I'm used to them.

Why can't you answer the question?

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

beezzer
Why won't people answer the question?

Either we have a freedom of speech or we don't.
.

As long as we're putting things in simplistic terms:

You have a constitutional right to free speech. You don't have a constitutional right to be on TV.

That's where your argument totally falls apart.

If I was publicly saying that, say, A&E's parent corporation Disney was over sexualizing very young girls and was morally guilty of the equivalent of sex crimes do you think I'd get a reality show on A&E? Would that be a restriction of my freedom of speech if they didn't put me on the air?

beezzer

CranialSponge

beezzer
My question was specific.

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

I didn't specify hate speech.
I didn't specify hospital bombs.
I didn't specify contracts.
I didn't specify networks.
I didn't specify physical characteristics.

Okay.

What ideology are you talking about ??

Does it matter?

Yes it matters.

If your talking about overall general ideologies that are NOT crossing a line into a whole different dimension, then NO, you don't have the right to be punished for it.

But that's not the case with this duck guy.

reply to post by beezzer


How is what I said an insult? I did already answer your question - YES it is right for ATS to do anything they want with their site, and their content, and to allow anyone to use or not use it at any time for any reason. It belongs to THEM, not the world, not the people who use it, them and only them. That's a pretty direct answer, it's a yes with a very specific backing statement.

My question (which is the title of this thread)

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

I'm beginning to see a pattern, a very disturbing pattern.

reply to post by beezzer

Yes but you dragged Phil's case into the mix which includes all those things.

You're trying to compare apples and oranges. If you don't see it by know then more words probably won't make much of a difference.

maus80
reply to post by beezzer

 

How is what I said an insult? I did already answer your question - YES it is right for ATS to do anything they want with their site, and their content, and to allow anyone to use or not use it at any time for any reason. It belongs to THEM, not the world, not the people who use it, them and only them. That's a pretty direct answer, it's a yes with a very specific backing statement.

So I can force ATS to ban you or anyone based on a difference of ideology.

I can punish you for not believing the same thing as I.

And you are good with that.

Wonderful.

One must also consider that companies, including ATS, (and a&e) are heavily oppressed by GOVERNMENT. For exmple, the zero tolerance policy of ATS regarding the discussion of illegal drugs in ATS forums. No matter how much ATS's creators, employees, and members disagree and protest, WE ALL KNOW IT IS RIDICULOUS. But ATS is forced into compliance, otherwise it risks shut down by the Feds (a VERY REAL risk- given the nature o of this site)

reply to post by beezzer


and you keep responding with an odd "Ok so you don't believe in free speech", that is some kind of weird pre-crime notion that I can't really follow. Someone would have to actually have said something to get banned for, to get banned for saying something. How can the right to say something and get banned for it be taken away, since the person would have to say the thing that got them banned to begin with?

beezzer

ltinycdancerg
I'm with George "When it comes to rights, I think one of two things is true. Either we have unlimited rights, or we have no rights at all. Personally, I believe we have unlimited rights. For instance, I feel I have the right to do anything I please, BUT, if I do something you don't like, I think you have the right to kill me. So where are you gonna find a fairer deal than that?"

Wonderful answer and I agree with you completely.

Even with your naughty outfits!

Ah, see this is a question of what constitutes freedom as I 100% agree with this too.

However I see it as Robertson being free to say what he wants, and the TV network being free to remove his show due to his remarks.
Robertson is still free to do interviews and give his opinion.

If you take away the TV networks freedom to show what they choose to then that is no longer complete freedom.
I support the free rights of Neo-Nazis to voice their opinion and for Communists too.
I also support the free right of a TV network that is not owned or operated by the Government to choose what they do or don't show.

beezzer

maus80
reply to post by beezzer

 

How is what I said an insult? I did already answer your question - YES it is right for ATS to do anything they want with their site, and their content, and to allow anyone to use or not use it at any time for any reason. It belongs to THEM, not the world, not the people who use it, them and only them. That's a pretty direct answer, it's a yes with a very specific backing statement.

So I can force ATS to ban you or anyone based on a difference of ideology.

I can punish you for not believing the same thing as I.

And you are good with that.

Wonderful.

Yes I'm ok with that! If ATS wants to ban me because my eyes are brown, I AM OK WITH THAT. Their site, their rules. You seem to have trouble understanding the difference between private and government ownership, and between laws and rules. It's weird...

b14warrior

beezzer

ltinycdancerg
I'm with George "When it comes to rights, I think one of two things is true. Either we have unlimited rights, or we have no rights at all. Personally, I believe we have unlimited rights. For instance, I feel I have the right to do anything I please, BUT, if I do something you don't like, I think you have the right to kill me. So where are you gonna find a fairer deal than that?"

Wonderful answer and I agree with you completely.

Even with your naughty outfits!

Ah, see this is a question of what constitutes freedom as I 100% agree with this too.

However I see it as Robertson being free to say what he wants, and the TV network being free to remove his show due to his remarks.
Robertson is still free to do interviews and give his opinion.

If you take away the TV networks freedom to show what they choose to then that is no longer complete freedom.
I support the free rights of Neo-Nazis to voice their opinion and for Communists too.
I also support the free right of a TV network that is not owned or operated by the Government to choose what they do or don't show.

I agree. I've had no issue with A&E. I've called them cowards. Wusses. But it is their right to knuckle under and cancel a show that is in their perview.

Cling not too firmly to any ideology, so as to be open to the truth as it unfolds.

"Culture is not your friend". Terence McKenna.

maus80

beezzer

maus80
reply to post by beezzer

 

How is what I said an insult? I did already answer your question - YES it is right for ATS to do anything they want with their site, and their content, and to allow anyone to use or not use it at any time for any reason. It belongs to THEM, not the world, not the people who use it, them and only them. That's a pretty direct answer, it's a yes with a very specific backing statement.

So I can force ATS to ban you or anyone based on a difference of ideology.

I can punish you for not believing the same thing as I.

And you are good with that.

Wonderful.

Yes I'm ok with that! If ATS wants to ban me because my eyes are brown, I AM OK WITH THAT. Their site, their rules. You seem to have trouble understanding the difference between private and government ownership, and between laws and rules. It's weird...

You're missing the point.

I'm asking ATS to ban you because I don't like you.

reply to post by b14warrior


a&e "killed" the show because Robertson asserted his right to speak freely.

the problem I have with all of this is

GLADD

Like PETA-these extremists are in bed with government, and I HAVE NO DOUBT that GLADD exploited their ties (with Government) to bully A&E to take the actions they did.

AGAIN...I implore you all to examine what the REAL PROBLEM is.

beezzer

b14warrior

beezzer

ltinycdancerg
I'm with George "When it comes to rights, I think one of two things is true. Either we have unlimited rights, or we have no rights at all. Personally, I believe we have unlimited rights. For instance, I feel I have the right to do anything I please, BUT, if I do something you don't like, I think you have the right to kill me. So where are you gonna find a fairer deal than that?"

Wonderful answer and I agree with you completely.

Even with your naughty outfits!

Ah, see this is a question of what constitutes freedom as I 100% agree with this too.

However I see it as Robertson being free to say what he wants, and the TV network being free to remove his show due to his remarks.
Robertson is still free to do interviews and give his opinion.

If you take away the TV networks freedom to show what they choose to then that is no longer complete freedom.
I support the free rights of Neo-Nazis to voice their opinion and for Communists too.
I also support the free right of a TV network that is not owned or operated by the Government to choose what they do or don't show.

I agree. I've had no issue with A&E. I've called them cowards. Wusses. But it is their right to knuckle under and cancel a show that is in their perview.

Right, so essentially you are saying now that it doesn't infringe anybodies freedoms, just you think they made the wrong decision.

If I own a bar and you work in my bar, and you make comments that I don't like, in public, and I don't think my customers will like it and I worry it will damage my business, so I replace you, I am a coward. But we are both still free to air our opinions.