Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: NoBody Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: Inconvenient lefties Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2024 09:43:19 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 94 Message-ID: <9ak21jpu5rrs76vfgisloeld4lrbfaacut@4ax.com> References: <17c333d2cd5539d8$169757$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com> <17c3425456280d71$51966$3384359$c2d58868@news.newsdemon.com> <17c37b6c29057425$4757$3037545$10d55a65@news.newsdemon.com> <25Ccnb-dnerIwo37nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> <17c3845f233a098e$3282$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2024 13:43:19 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dea9ab138cad88a30a7675fe4ac0ce21"; logging-data="2215790"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX193kp2+NYok2rXHgOCcjNxpDtGG2AovX+E=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:4id9U2QT58Ltd8Qr1qSxyzh+r/8= X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 3.3/32.846 X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 240406-2, 4/6/2024), Outbound message Bytes: 5711 On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 18:57:07 -0400, 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 Well, any law can be repealed, decision overturned, and constitution 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". > That definition is usually reserved for attacks from the left.