Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2024 23:05:58 -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> <17c3b829d977a4bb$361$1351842$40d50a60@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: 33 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, 07 Apr 2024 03:05:58 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 2235 Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17c3e0882b0394ca$5560$3037545$10d55a65@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 2615 On 4/6/2024 2:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > In article <17c3b829d977a4bb$361$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com>, > moviePig wrote: > >> 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: > >>>>>> 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. > > No, the law is what it is and it's not what you claim. You can have your > own opinions but you can't have your own facts. No? The law *isn't* text that SCOTUS has opinions about? ...as I may?