Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 22:37:43 -0400 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: moviePig In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 110 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: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 02:37:43 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 6009 X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17c1b8ed958fbb7c$126120$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 6391 On 3/30/2024 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. "Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that enhanced penalties for hate crimes do not violate criminal defendants' First Amendment rights.[1] It was a landmark precedent pertaining to First Amendment free speech arguments for hate crime legislation." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_v._Mitchell