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 Illusionsaregrander
I need to know what ATS considers hate speech. In a fairly clear way with examples. Because I do want to follow the rules. But I dont want to tip toe around not saying anything because I dont know whats legal here.
Originally posted by deccal
I have a question: can for example this thread be considered as a hate speech, or hate thread? www.abovetopsecret.com...
If I look at OP's maps with labels: This is Muslim, This is Muslim, I find it clearly inappropriate. But I wanted to know what do you think.
Originally posted by Crakeur
Originally posted by
These Crazy fanatic Muslims throwing tear Gas and eggs at a peaceful Rally. Another event proving that Islam has no tolerance for democracy or any other religion.
1. is it necessary to call them crazy fanatics. does this mean all of islam is like this? no. hate speech
Originally posted by its sad since your Muslim brothers will keep dieing in the hand of the mighty Israeli Army.
2. unnecessary discussion of death at the "hand of the mighty.." adds nothing to the discussion, only fuels hatred.
[edit on 5-2-2009 by Crakeur]
Originally posted by undo
as someone else mentioned, this area is reallllly grey.
[edit on 6-2-2009 by undo]
Originally posted by Valhall
and have watched some portion of the posting membership consistently get confused that some how they have a guarantee of "free speech" here. No you don't...no I don't...no we don't. You post at the discretion of the ownership.
[edit on 2-6-2009 by Valhall]
Originally posted by undo
reply to post by deccal
the intent is to say --- if i'm guilty as a christian, for things someone did in 1000 BC or 1000 AD, then how is he not guilty, as a man, for things men have done to women since the dawn of homo sapians? it doesn't mean that men are bad. it means that each person is an individual; no more or no less prone to be good or bad, regardless of title (christian, man, woman, etc). so making clearly defined groups to blame, is totally ludicrous.
Originally posted by deccal
Originally posted by PhyberDragon
That is actually the Problem with Censorship and Hate speech Laws. They Punish things which are illegal anyways, violence is already illegal under Law. So what then, if anything do such Laws protect, if not the views and the agendas of those whose media are it's protectors?
Originally posted by Valhall
Originally posted by deccal
We're in violent agreement.
But I don't know why we need to discuss the nuances of the term "free speech" when my point was...it doesn't apply here. At that point the debate on what "free speech" means is pretty much moot.
[edit on 2-6-2009 by Valhall]