Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: FPP Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: Inconvenient lefties Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 10:06:37 -0400 Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn. Lines: 130 Message-ID: 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> Reply-To: fredp1571@gmail.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2024 14:06:38 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="98cd034461176e5686dabd639f5c05ee"; logging-data="2664389"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18s35k1nUxmceGFHPViIJfC" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:HLswexjdoJujkXWM/l9RvoSXC+c= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 7540 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. -- "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC Bible 25B.G. https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0 Gracie, age 6. https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0