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 MDDoxs
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
I really do not consider myself an expert on the American constitution, so this question is more for my own understanding.
Has the constitution become to dated, due to the founding fathers having no way to anticipate the growing variety of issues the document would need to address?
We better defend everybody's "Free Speech".
How long will it be until the mob turns on you?
I don't like this dirtbag film maker any more than you.
Unfortunately, we must defend even the worst offenders.
Our "Free Speech" rights are what this Nation was founded on.
Originally posted by mr-lizard
True. But he incited them. He should still be charged for his provocative actions.
First of all as to the “film” or whatever. As news managed to get past the “controllers,” it became obvious that the “Israeli” director never existed and the film had been financed by a group out of Las Vegas in the casino business tied directly to the Romney campaign.
Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Oh and guess what, I was deeply offended by the Egyptian protestor holding the torn out star of the American flag, flashed all over the news yesterday, but I didn't see any Americans storming the Egyptian embassy.
The ambassador goes to Libya is instrumental in helping them, which I believe was a BIG mistake, for gods sake stop helping them.
And how does he get repaid?
They are the ones who couldn't control themselves when someone came out with an opinion they didn't like.
Originally posted by GLaDOS
Yeah everything is okay to say unless you say something about the Holocaust or Israel. Then it is anti-Semitic.
Originally posted by Orwells Ghost
I live in Canada. We have free speech here...to an extent. "Inciting hatred" is considered illegal, so there are limitations as to what you can say. Had this film been made here, this "gentleman" would have been hauled up in front of the human rights commission and charged with inciting. The human rights commission in this country is as close to an Orwellian institution as you will find, accountable to no one, above the law, and capable of passing a binding sentence with no jury of peers and no appeal. Is that something you would like to see in America? Is that a preferable state of affairs to absolute free speech? The only persons responsible for these murders are the murderers. Savages. Murderers. Oh, and they certainly don't give an eff about free speech.edit on 13-9-2012 by Orwells Ghost because: (no reason given)
I mean all of them everywhere. Does that answer your question?
Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by DarthMuerte
It definitely does not do so in this case. The savages following the death cult known as islam are completely to blame for the deaths here and should be punished as such. At a very minimum, all aid of any sort and all business dealings with the current regimes in place should end.
What about the "death cult following savages" in Saudi Arabia..who America is allied with?
Should America also end all business/diplomatic dealings with those Saudi savages? Or should they remain an exception?
Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by whyamIhere
We better defend everybody's "Free Speech".
How long will it be until the mob turns on you?
I don't like this dirtbag film maker any more than you.
Unfortunately, we must defend even the worst offenders.
Our "Free Speech" rights are what this Nation was founded on.
Free speech when it comes to artistic/creative expression = good.
Free speech when used to insult, offend and ridicule other people = not good.
I cant change the way you think... but can you imagine a "free speech" proponent show up at a funeral of a loved one holding insulting signs.... or yelling abuses through a microphone. Would you go out, shake their hands and celebrate this thing called free speech.... or would you walk out with a plank and knock some manners into them?
Speaking for myself, I'd use the plank.
Short answer is YES. Especially "sensitive issues". It is very important to our collective freedom that people be allowed to express their ideas no matter how detestable some of them may be.
Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
[
Also, do you mean to say that the concept of "free speech" allows one to mock, offend and insult anybody and anything? Even the "sensitive" issues? Please explain.
Originally posted by alphaskunk
Originally posted by Jeremiah65
First Amendment people. I don't care who gets offended or how stupid they act. Stupidity on one persons part is THEIR fault...not someone else's.
It shocks me how many people are ready to violate their own rights because some uneducated group of extremists got their panties in a bunch. If you get offended, turn away, don't look, or listen.
"Those that would sacrifice liberty for security will lose both and deserve neither" Benjamin Franklin...
But we already know most of the sheep out there suggesting this always run to their "herder", throwing their rights at their "master's" feet and begging for protection.
That BF quote is so out of context with the issue being discussed here. It has nothing to do with security or the killing of the Ambassador. It has to do with respect and dignity, having the freedom of speech does not mean you can simply humiliate and # all over someones beliefs, Muslims, homosexuals, Christians, Buddhist etc... If you can not tolerate differences then i would be the first one to revoke the right to free speech from you.
Definition:
In law, sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority to tend toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.
Sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power. Treason is the violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or state, giving aid to enemies, or levying war against one's state. Sedition is encouraging one's fellow citizens to rebel against their state, whereas treason is actually betraying one's country by aiding and abetting another state. Sedition laws somewhat equate to terrorism and public order laws.
See: Public Order Crime.
Originally posted by Wildbob77
Almost any movie offends someone.
Do we now have to treat Muslims as "Special"?
No one cares if a movie is produced that may offend other religions. Why should Islam be different?
If this movie offends Muslims, then they shouldn't watch it.