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.
originally posted by: seeker1963
originally posted by: eNumbra
originally posted by: mobiusmale
a reply to: SeekingAlpha
Thank you for so eloquently proving my point.
Certain (unnamed) "deplorable racists" were supposed to speak about free speech, and so they were prevented from speaking...as was their right under the First Amendment...by an angry mob.
They chose not to show up.
They were not denied by the gevernment the ability to hold their gathering.
How was their first amendment right violated?
Oh I don't know.................umm perhaps knowing the threat of violence from people who DON'T believe in the Constitution and Freedom of Assembly?
Just guessin here.....
originally posted by: JIMC5499
They were smart enough to smell a setup.
originally posted by: RespectfullyDisagree
a reply to: eNumbra
Nothing says tolerance like intimidation and the threat of violence.
originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: seeker1963 So we meet again I see. This subjecr is a touchy one and all you do is toe the part of no. Though the left is doing that now but the right does not even want the Dems involved. Look we all have our disagreements but at some point we have to work together. Instead of a small response with a thumbs down how we work out a plan TOGETHER and actually get snip done.
originally posted by: dfnj2015
originally posted by: seeker1963
originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: mobiusmale
Tolerance for intolerance is not acceptable. No apology needed.
So you are for the mob mentality and against the Constitution?
No wonder you guys are getting scared. The pendulum is swinging back and ya'll are so scared you are willing to burn the country to the ground rather than think logically and stop the insanity.
The goal and purpose of the white supremacists is to take away Constitution rights of a huge group of citizens in this country. When a group's purpose of organizing is to take away Constitutional rights of others I'm sure that group is entitled to have Constitution rights. If the purpose of the group is to undermine the Constitution isn't some kind of breaking the law?
It's really simple argument to say you have to protect other's free speech even if you don't like what they are a saying. This is not simple political opposition speech. This is taking away the Constitutional rights of others speech. I think it has to be handled different.
I get you right wingers have your panties in bunch over the 40,000 protesters. Only 10 or so your white supremacist friends showed up. But keep trying to undermine the Constitution but try not to be upset when the objects of the hate group show up in mass.
originally posted by: eNumbra
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Still waiting to see someone explain how their rights were violated.
The right to free speech is actually a much older, broader concept than the First Amendment. Like other fundamental human rights, it’s something people innately possess (including all those non-Americans you may have heard of), and it exists independently of any government.
Which means free speech is not only about what the government can or can’t do. The right to free speech means it’s wrong for any entity, governmental or not, to try to silence you.
Unfortunately, I think a lot of people parroting this point aren’t grasping the finer details, and coming to believe that as long as it’s not a government agency censoring you, then anything goes. I’ve even seen the sentiment expressed that censorship can only be done by the government, which simply isn’t true. There are many other entities that can censor you. They may not be legally inhibiting your freedom of speech, but they are inhibiting it, and in some cases it can be just as wrong as when the government does it.
But this type of argument is missing a major point. “People will say free speech only extends to an action of the government, and that’s not right,” Greg Lukianoff, president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, told Salon.
...
Furthermore, there are ways the First Amendment can be applied that don’t specifically concern laws being made that affect speech. In the spirit of protecting First Amendment rights, the government must prevent speech from being silenced when that is possible.
The government has to prevent an angry mob from preventing a person from exercising his or her First Amendment rights. “When it comes to preventing mob rule, the main function of the government is to make sure that people with unpopular views aren’t silenced,” Lukianoff said. “You can have mob censorship.”
Lukianoff has written about an old concept called the “heckler’s veto,” which is when speech is silenced to prevent a violent response from others.
This isn't true. Republicans or conservatives are not being put into the same camp as those hate groups.
It is a common misconception that only that the constitution only protects people from the government attacking their free speech.
“There’s never been a Supreme Court case that said that there’s a First Amendment violation when an entirely private entity regulates speech,” Ronald Collins, a law professor at the University of Washington, told Salon. He explained you can have a “denial of free speech that doesn’t involve the government” or a “censorship that doesn’t involve the government,” but you can’t have a First Amendment violation that doesn’t involve the government.
The 4th amendment protects from the government unreasonable searching or seizing your property. Does that mean that any private individual can search and seize your property and your rights have not been violated? Of course not.
The Communist Origins of the Antifa Extremist Group
Group promoted communist dictatorship in Germany on Soviet Union's behalf, and labelled all ideologies other than communism as 'fascism'
I hope all Americans are paying very close attention to what is happening to free speech in their Country.
originally posted by: eNumbra
originally posted by: mobiusmale
a reply to: SeekingAlpha
Thank you for so eloquently proving my point.
Certain (unnamed) "deplorable racists" were supposed to speak about free speech, and so they were prevented from speaking...as was their right under the First Amendment...by an angry mob.
They chose not to show up.
They were not denied by the gevernment the ability to hold their gathering.
How was their first amendment right violated?
originally posted by: seeker1963
originally posted by: mobiusmale
originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: mobiusmale
Check out Boston Antifa's Twitter page!
Keep in mind this is just what they put out there for the public to see.
This excerpt from your link about says it all...
No room for capitalists, conservatives, libertarians, "classical liberals" or supporters of the US constitution in our city.
Yep! I pretty much just refer to them as George Soros Communists.
They hate everybody who isn't one of them! For those of us who studied history, their whole shtick of being anti fascist is utterly delusional.
originally posted by: growler
originally posted by: seeker1963
originally posted by: mobiusmale
originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: mobiusmale
Check out Boston Antifa's Twitter page!
Keep in mind this is just what they put out there for the public to see.
This excerpt from your link about says it all...
No room for capitalists, conservatives, libertarians, "classical liberals" or supporters of the US constitution in our city.
Yep! I pretty much just refer to them as George Soros Communists.
They hate everybody who isn't one of them! For those of us who studied history, their whole shtick of being anti fascist is utterly delusional.
lol
your lack of any intellect humours me.
say something else funny.
say he funds communism rather than actually oppose it.
i've told my friends to check this place out for stupidity, it never fails.
Again, you are the only one saying free speech is only the first amendment.
Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Again, you are the only one saying free speech is only the first amendment.
I never said that the rally had their first amendment rights violated. I said the ones that were physically attacked or blocked to prevent them from being heard had their free speech violated.
It even a dressing specifically of a mobs ability to violated someone free speech, like in Boston.
You are terribly confused.