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.
Krazysh0t
reply to post by BrianFlanders
More like: Conservatives make stuff up. Liberals will attack your character. Neither address the real points.
Spiramirabilis
Buttonlip
Lucid Lunacy
I think who benefits from freedom of speech the most would be answered by asking a different question. Who benefits the least by freedom of speech; the people at the top.
Huh????? The people at the top benefit least? Please explain.
Free speech is often criticism
Krazysh0t
reply to post by ketsuko
I actually don't care what he is. He claims to be Christian, so I'm going to say he is Christian. Whatever he is in private is between him and I guess God. His public persona though says he is Christian. This seems to help the red U.S. sleep at night. I mean why else would they get all upset on the president possibly being a Muslim? What I'm getting at is a president willingly having a public persona that is actively atheist. Keep in mind that the first non-Protestant president was a HUGE deal back in the 60's and he was only RCC.
beezzer
Buttonlip
beezzer
reply to post by ketsuko
True free speech is defending someone you disagree with.
That makes ZERO SENSE. I can only be speaking freely if I am defending someone I do not agree with????? What is Phil doing then? Who is he defending? Free speech is expressing yourself, not comparing your thoughts to those of another. How many of your posts are free speech and how many are you defending someone you do not agree with? You logic is lost on me.
And I will defend your right to post the above.
Krazysh0t
reply to post by ketsuko
So? Now explain to me how his faith is relevant to... ANYTHING regarding government. I mean it is so bad that a closet atheist (allegedly) has to hide his faith using political maneuvering just so he can stay acceptable in the public's eyes.edit on 5-1-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)
Buttonlip
beezzer
Buttonlip
beezzer
reply to post by ketsuko
True free speech is defending someone you disagree with.
That makes ZERO SENSE. I can only be speaking freely if I am defending someone I do not agree with????? What is Phil doing then? Who is he defending? Free speech is expressing yourself, not comparing your thoughts to those of another. How many of your posts are free speech and how many are you defending someone you do not agree with? You logic is lost on me.
And I will defend your right to post the above.
That is really sweet of you but it does nothing to explain the claim that the only free speech is defense of other speech. The speech being defended was not free speech?
ketsuko
Buttonlip
Lucid Lunacy
I think who benefits from freedom of speech the most would be answered by asking a different question. Who benefits the least by freedom of speech; the people at the top.
Huh????? The people at the top benefit least? Please explain.
Freedom of speech was put in the COTUS specifically to protect the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances ... specifically against the government.
One thing that people conveniently forget about the Citizens United Case in the SCOTUS was that one of the things the people arguing for the government would be able and allowed to do if the SCOTUS had ruled the other way was ban books specifically books with political speech the government did not like.
Buttonlip
ketsuko
Buttonlip
Lucid Lunacy
I think who benefits from freedom of speech the most would be answered by asking a different question. Who benefits the least by freedom of speech; the people at the top.
Huh????? The people at the top benefit least? Please explain.
Freedom of speech was put in the COTUS specifically to protect the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances ... specifically against the government.
One thing that people conveniently forget about the Citizens United Case in the SCOTUS was that one of the things the people arguing for the government would be able and allowed to do if the SCOTUS had ruled the other way was ban books specifically books with political speech the government did not like.
That still does not answer my question. It is a very simple question in response to a very simple statement yet so many have taken the ball, run with it, and gone somewhere else entirely.
A perfect example is 100 years ago. Who benefited the LEAST from free speech in the US? Black people and women were punished by the government for things they said. Were rich white men? So please explain how and when the people on top started benefiting the least. Lost of rich white men in jail now for things they said? Am I missing that?
Buttonlip
beezzer
Buttonlip
beezzer
reply to post by ketsuko
True free speech is defending someone you disagree with.
That makes ZERO SENSE. I can only be speaking freely if I am defending someone I do not agree with????? What is Phil doing then? Who is he defending? Free speech is expressing yourself, not comparing your thoughts to those of another. How many of your posts are free speech and how many are you defending someone you do not agree with? You logic is lost on me.
And I will defend your right to post the above.
That is really sweet of you but it does nothing to explain the claim that the only free speech is defense of other speech. The speech being defended was not free speech?
ketsuko
beezzer
reply to post by darkbake
Any inhibition of free speech hurts everyone.
Free expression in thoughts, words, music, poetry, internet, paper, dance, opinions; is crucial if were are to grow as a society.
Yes, this.
The only difference between MSNBC and what Robertson was doing is that Duck Dynasty is solely for entertainment not for any kind of factual edification. MSNBC purports to be a news organization. Now maybe I misunderstood and they were taking part in a punditry show, in which case, a certain amount of opinion is expected. Then, it's up to the network to determine if their opinions are rendered in good taste or not.
Obviously the 650,000 viewers of MSNBC must be just fine with it.