Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 22:46:51 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Inconvenient lefties Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv References: <17c2951988fe8093$63098$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com> <17c2cf26c4db72b2$7802$1100308$44d50e60@news.newsdemon.com> <17c2e3252df08033$63111$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com> <6IWdnbOgZM0be5D7nZ2dnZfqnPcAAAAA@giganews.com> <17c31e036847f89d$33224$111488$4ed50460@news.newsdemon.com> <17c333d2cd5539d8$169757$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com> Content-Language: en-US From: moviePig In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 102 Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.hasname.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail Nntp-Posting-Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2024 02:46:53 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 5570 Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17c3425456280d71$51966$3384359$c2d58868@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 5972 On 4/4/2024 9:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > In article > <17c333d2cd5539d8$169757$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com>, > moviePig wrote: > >> On 4/4/2024 3:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>> In article <17c31e036847f89d$33224$111488$4ed50460@news.newsdemon.com>, >>> moviePig wrote: >>> >>>> On 4/3/2024 7:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>> moviePig wrote: >>>>>> On 4/3/2024 2:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>> On Apr 3, 2024 at 8:36:11 AM PDT, "moviePig" wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 4/3/2024 5:50 AM, FPP wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 4/2/24 5:52 PM, moviePig wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2024 1:16 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Mar 27, 2024 at 3:58:45 PM PDT, moviePig : >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3/27/2024 6:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adam H. Kerman : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTR1701 wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why is it that burning the American flag is protected speech, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but if you burn an Alphabet Mafia rainbow flag, you can get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arrested for a hate crime? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean a flag that does not belong to you, not your own flag. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I mean any rainbow flag. If you go buy one yourself, then >>>>>>>>>>>>>> take it to an anti-troon protest and burn it, it's a hate crime. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if you buy an American flag and take it to an Antifa riot >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and burn it, protected speech. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The former action is one of hate, the latter is one of protest. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/0FpvG4S >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> moviePig is unparseable here. Is he stating that protestors protest >>>>>>>>>>> against their friends and not their enemies? I'm so confused. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm here to help. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In general, people who burn an American flag do so in protest of >>>>>>>>>> their own government's actions and policies, while those who burn a >>>>>>>>>> rainbow flag do so to express their hate of queers. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you own it, you can burn it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But not at a gay-pride march under laws against hate speech. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are no laws against hate speech in the United States. If any >>>>>>> legislature should pass such a law, it would be unconstitutional. >>>>>> >>>>>> ...until some future SCOTUS rules differently. >>>>> >>>>> Well, any law can be repealed, decision overturned, and constitution >>>>> amended, but your statement wasn't that of a future wish but as a >>>>> (fallacious) recitation of the status quo. >>>> >>>> I "recited" nothing. I (deliberately) posed a hypothetical. >>> >>> You didn't indicate at all that it was a hypothetical. You made the >>> simple statement, in response to Effa saying that if you own (a rainbow >>> flag) you can burn it, "but not at a gay-pride march under laws against >>> hate speech". >>> >>> Where's the hypothetical there? Looks like it's a statement of what you >>> believe to be the status quo of American law. >> >> I said (and say) that such confrontational flag-burning is what a law >> against hate speech prohibits. > > Yes, and we don't have laws against hate speech because they're > unconstitutional. > > Hate speech is protected 1st Amendment speech. > >> I didn't cite a particular instance because I didn't know of any -- though >> it now seems I might've found some in Canadian law. > > Well, of course. Canadia has neither a constitution nor a 1st Amendment, > so its government can and does infringe on their freedom to speak with > appalling regularity. Not only can the Canadidian government prohibit > entire categories of speech altogether, it's free to take sides, to > create double standards where some speech and protests are allowed > (e.g., pro-Hamas) and other are brutally repressed (e.g., truckers) > based on whether the government agrees with and approves of the speaker > or not. > >> Regardless, the point I've always defended is that 'hate speech' is as >> much of an identifiable phenomenon as, say, pornography, and imo not >> necessarily entitled *in principle* to "free speech" protections. > > And according to 200+ years of 1st Amendment jurisprudence, you'd be > wrong. Yes, anytime one disagrees with a published opinion, one is -- according to that published opinion -- "wrong".