Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 16:13:07 -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> <17c3425456280d71$51966$3384359$c2d58868@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: 82 Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!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 20:13:07 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 4671 Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17c37b6c29057425$4757$3037545$10d55a65@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 5076 On 4/4/2024 10:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > In article > <17c3425456280d71$51966$3384359$c2d58868@news.newsdemon.com>, > moviePig wrote: > >> 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: >> >>>>>>>>>>> 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 Well, any law can be repealed, decision overturned, and constitution 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". > > Yes, when that opinion defines the law of the nation, making directly > contradictory claims in Usenet posts does make you wrong. What *opinion* -- of anything anywhere -- can't be contradicted? Fyi, *that* would be a violation of 'free speech'...