Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2024 10:46:12 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Inconvenient lefties Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv References: <17c37b6c29057425$4757$3037545$10d55a65@news.newsdemon.com> <25Ccnb-dnerIwo37nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> <17c3845f233a098e$3282$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com> <0B2dnfnk4IawGI37nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> Content-Language: en-US From: moviePig In-Reply-To: <0B2dnfnk4IawGI37nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> 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: Sat, 06 Apr 2024 14:46:13 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 5508 Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17c3b829d977a4bb$361$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 5908 On 4/5/2024 7:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > On Apr 5, 2024 at 3:57:07 PM PDT, "moviePig" wrote: > >> On 4/5/2024 4:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>> moviePig wrote: >>>> 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 Well, any law can be repealed, decision overturned, and constitution 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'... >>> >>> No one's muzzling or prohibiting you from making contradictory statements >>> regarding the SCOTUS ruling. However, your right to free speech doesn't >>> immunize you from being wrong or bar others from pointing out your >>> wrongness. >> >> ...where "wrongness" means "of differing opinion". > > You can have an opinion that SCOTUS decided wrongly and wish it had made a > different ruling but you can't have an opinion that the law is other than it > is. The 'law' is what SCOTUS has opinions about. I can have *my* opinion about either or both. Therein, the only "wrong" would be a misquoting.