Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 18:21:01 -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> Content-Language: en-US From: moviePig In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 77 Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!panix!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail Nntp-Posting-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 22:21:03 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 4371 Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17c333d2cd5539d8$169757$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 4773 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. 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. 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 'principle', not 'status quo', is all that interests me here.