Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2024 03:37:49 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Inconvenient lefties Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv References: <17c0c13d249c8eca$72548$1768716$4ad50060@news.newsdemon.com> <17c0ceb693286352$341$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com> <2MucnTxnR-96cJn7nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> <17c0fc54e55b8534$37200$3384359$c2d58868@news.newsdemon.com> <17c109af9b28102b$53484$2218499$46d50c60@news.newsdemon.com> Content-Language: en-US From: trotsky In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 134 Path: ...!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: Tue, 02 Apr 2024 08:37:49 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 7309 Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17c269bd3ccde2ff$157280$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 7690 On 4/1/24 2:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > In article , FPP > wrote: > >> On 3/31/24 3:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>> In article , FPP >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 3/30/24 4:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>> In article , FPP >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 3/29/24 2:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>> In article , FPP >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 3/28/24 6:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>> moviePig wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2024 2:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>>>>>> <17c0fc54e55b8534$37200$3384359$c2d58868@news.newsdemon.com>, >>>>>>>>>>> moviePig wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2024 12:11 AM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 27, 2024 at 8:05:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2024 7:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <17c0c13d249c8eca$72548$1768716$4ad50060@news.newsdemon.com>, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2024 6:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article , >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Adam H. Kerman" wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adam H. Kerman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Last Friday, a Chicago alderman (there are cockroaches >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with higher social standing) gave a speech at a rally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outside city hall condemning Biden and support for Israel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the war against Hamas. A veteran had burned a special >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> American flag >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What if the former is one of protest, too? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That'd be for a judge to be convinced of >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Since when do I have to convince the government of the reasons >>>>>>>>>>>>> for my speech to keep from being jailed for it? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Congress shall make no law..." >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...who might ask, e.g., whether the defendant *knew* how the act >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be perceived. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> My right to free speech isn't dependent on how someone else-- >>>>>>>>>>>>> with an agenda of their own-- might perceive my words. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Are you disputing laws against hate speech or how they're >>>>>>>>>>>> enforced? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Both. Hate speech is protected speech per the Supreme Court and >>>>>>>>>>> any laws to the contrary are unconstitutional. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. >>>>>>>>>>> 43 (1977) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> One cold night, a homeless man builds and lights a bonfire that >>>>>>>>>> destroys a family's manicured lawn. Elsewhere, a well-known redneck >>>>>>>>>> erects and burns a wooden cross, destroying the lawn of a black >>>>>>>>>> family. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To your mind, are these infractions fully equivalent to each other? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Those are crimes, not speech. You didn't ask about hate crimes. You >>>>>>>>> asked about hate speech. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So change it to incitement to commit a crime by speech, then. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's our Effa, always trying to get around the 1st Amendment because, >>>>>>> like most leftists, he fundamentally hates the idea of not being able >>>>>>> to control what people can and cannot say. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (And no, you smooth-brained dimwit, a charge of incitement can't be >>>>>>> sustained without a crowd present to, ya know, incite.) >>>>>>> >>>>>> Scalia told us that amendments have limits and are subject to regulation >>>>>> by the courts. >>>>> >>>>> Yes. And in the case of hate speech, the Court has spoken: National >>>>> Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977) >>>>> >>>>> That case set the standard and the Court has never overturned or limited >>>>> it in any way in the intervening 47 years. In fact, whenever the subject >>>>> has come up, the Court has reinforced and reaffirmed the Skokie ruling. >>>>> >>>> National Security secrets aren't a march. >>> >>> We're not talking about national security secrets here, you >>> smooth-brained dipshit. >>> >>> We're talking about burning gay pride flags, moviePig's hypothetical >>> fire on a black family's lawn, and hate speech. >>> >>> The Skokie decision was about speech, not the press or national security >>> secrets. If you're going to interject your ignorant bullshit, at least >>> try and make it relevant to what's being discussed. >>> >> You were making that exact case in another thread. > > But not here, dipshit. We're talking about something else *here*. Yes, are you now claiming Usenet has no thread drift? Because that would be exceptionally stupid even by the low bar you've set.