Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: FPP Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: The 1st Amendment Apparently Doesn't Exist in New York Either Date: Sat, 4 May 2024 22:50:27 -0400 Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn. Lines: 216 Message-ID: References: <58CcnV8UJNeyK637nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <-s2cnbpkjOMsoKz7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> <17cc3f97234b6efc$231970$197378$4ed50460@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: Sun, 05 May 2024 04:50:27 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c0f541925df08c960af63bbaee4b4974"; logging-data="1738740"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+jEdIwyYnEwFpgDnp+hOZZ" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:09Z0kWM+0Lh1Jk2BscGBliO1jhY= In-Reply-To: <17cc3f97234b6efc$231970$197378$4ed50460@news.newsdemon.com> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 11677 On 5/4/24 5:37 AM, trotsky wrote: > On 5/3/24 9:33 AM, FPP wrote: >> On 5/2/24 1:42 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>> In article , FPP >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 5/1/24 1:05 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>> In article , FPP >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 4/30/24 2:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>> On Apr 30, 2024 at 6:17:34 AM PDT, "FPP" >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 4/30/24 5:13 AM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>> In the U.S., politicians have demanded Internet censorship and >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>> even engaged in it themselves. For example, the Supreme Court >>>>>>>>> will soon >>>>>>>>> hear Missouri v. Biden, a case in which the federal government >>>>>>>>> coerced >>>>>>>>> social media platforms to censor content it disagreed with-- >>>>>>>>> even if >>>>>>>>> the content was true. >>>>>>>>> Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George >>>>>>>>> Washington >>>>>>>>> University and free speech advocate who has written extensively >>>>>>>>> on the >>>>>>>>> issues of censorship and limitations on speech, has cautioned >>>>>>>>> the U.S. >>>>>>>>> against adopting European censorship laws that allow >>>>>>>>> governments to >>>>>>>>> stop people from saying things that governments oppose. Despite >>>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>>> many think, "hate speech", which is subjective, is protected >>>>>>>>> both by >>>>>>>>> the Constitution and by Supreme Court precedent. >>>>>>>>> He wrote: >>>>>>>>> "There have been calls to ban hate speech for years. Even former >>>>>>>>> journalist and Obama State Department official Richard Stengel has >>>>>>>>> insisted that while "the 1st Amendment protects 'the thought >>>>>>>>> that we >>>>>>>>> hate'... it should not protect hateful speech that can cause >>>>>>>>> violence >>>>>>>>> by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a >>>>>>>>> megaphone, >>>>>>>>> that seems like a design flaw." >>>>>>>>> Actually, it was not a design flaw but the very essence of the >>>>>>>>> Framers' >>>>>>>>> plan for a free society. >>>>>>>>> The 1st Amendment does not distinguish between types of speech, >>>>>>>>> clearly >>>>>>>>> stating: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an >>>>>>>>> establishment of >>>>>>>>> religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or >>>>>>>>> abridging the >>>>>>>>> freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people >>>>>>>>> peaceablyto assemble, and to petition the government for a >>>>>>>>> redress of >>>>>>>>> grievances.'" >>>>>>>>> He cited Brandenburg v. Ohio, a 1969 case involving "violent >>>>>>>>> speech", >>>>>>>>> wherein the Supreme Court struck down an Ohio law prohibiting >>>>>>>>> public >>>>>>>>> speech that was deemed as promoting illegal conduct, specifically >>>>>>>>> ruling for the right of the Ku Klux Klan to speak out, even though >>>>>>>>> it is a hateful organization." >>>>>>>>> That ruling led to National Socialist Party of America v. >>>>>>>>> Village of >>>>>>>>> Skokie in 1977, where the Court unanimously ruled that the city >>>>>>>>> government could not constitutionally deny a permit for the >>>>>>>>> American >>>>>>>>> Nazi Party to hold a march in the city streets, even in a city >>>>>>>>> populated heavily by Holocaust survivors. >>>>>>>>> Turley also noted that in the 2011 case of RAV v. City of St. >>>>>>>>> Paul, >>>>>>>>> the Court struck down a ban on any symbol that 'arouses anger, >>>>>>>>> alarm >>>>>>>>> or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, >>>>>>>>> religion >>>>>>>>> or gender, and in Snyder v. Phelps, also in 2011, the Court said >>>>>>>>> that "the hateful protests of Westboro Baptist Church were >>>>>>>>> protected". >>>>> >>>>>>>> Jonathan Turley? Do better. You're a better lawyer than Jonathan >>>>>>>> Turley... and what does that say? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> More of Effa's standard 'blame the messenger' dodge. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Notice he doesn't (and can't) refute the fact that the Supreme Court >>>>>>> cases cited by Turley actually exist and the rulings are what >>>>>>> they are, >>>>>>> so he just attacks the person citing them. This is one of the >>>>>>> classic >>>>>>> rhetorical and logical fallacies, one Effa has wholeheartedly >>>>>>> embraced >>>>>>> because he thinks it allows him to win on Usenet on any given day. >>>>> >>>>>> Turley is an idiot. And he reads a calendar about as well as YOU read >>>>>> English. >>>>> >>>>> More of Effa's standard 'blame the messenger' dodge. >>>>> >>>>> Notice he doesn't (and can't) refute the fact that the Supreme Court >>>>> cases cited by Turley actually exist and the rulings are what they >>>>> are, >>>>> so he just attacks the person citing them. This is one of the classic >>>>> rhetorical and logical fallacies, one Effa has wholeheartedly embraced >>>>> because he thinks it allows him to win on Usenet on any given day. >>>>> >>>> Turley is like every MAGA. A bullshitter and a clown. >>>> >>>> He made a learned legal argument that Biden was guilty when he wasn't >>>> even in office. That's bush league. >>> >>> And here Effa continues to employ his typical 'blame the messenger' >>> dodge rather than address the substance of the matter asserted. >>> >>> Notice that he doesn't (and can't) refute the fact that the Supreme >>> Court cases cited by Turley actually exist and the rulings are what they >>> are, so he just attacks the person citing them. This is one of the >>> classic rhetorical and logical fallacies, one Effa has wholeheartedly >>> embraced because he thinks it allows him to win on Usenet on any given >>> day. >>> >> >> This is the substance of the matter.  Turley is a MAGA liar. >> Hey, here's a legal axiom... let me know if you've ever heard it, >> counselor. >> >> >>> falsus in uno doctrine >>> The falsus in uno doctrine is a principle that says if a witness lies >>> about one important thing, then the jury can assume that everything >>> they say is a lie. It means that if the jury thinks a witness is >>> intentionally deceitful, they can ignore everything that witness says. >> >> Look it up.  Turley is a liar in a lot more than one thing.  Want me >> to list a few, or do you prefer to run away before I do it? >> >>> Turley incorrectly claimed that DOJ special counsel Jack Smith was >>> indicting Trump for misinformation. He stated that Trump is “being >>> indicted for spreading lies. That's what the indictment says over and >>> over again, and they insist that he knew they were lies.” [Fox News, >>> The Story with Martha MacCallum, 8/3/23] >> >>> Turley stated Trump is “being charged with lying” and argued the >>> indictment raises “free speech concerns.” He stated, “There are >>> legitimate free speech concerns raised by these charges. Essentially >>> he's being charged with lying and the government is saying you can >>> make false statements in an election, but not if you know that >>> they're false. But they don't really establish that he knew that they >>> were false, even if that theory is correct.” [Fox News, America >>> Reports, 8/3/23] >> >>> Turley argued that Trump is protected from charges in the January 6 >>> indictment because of the First Amendment. He claimed, “It does not >>> appear that this was motivated by new evidence, and in order to get a >>> conviction, he [Smith] will have to use material that, in my view, is >>> clearly protected by the First Amendment.” [Fox News, Special Report >>> with Bret Baier, 8/1/23] >> >>> Turley floated the idea that indicting Trump and penalizing him over >>> his actions on January 6 would “criminalize false political speech.” >>> He claimed, “It's unlikely he [Trump] will get a trial put in front >>> of the Florida trial, but they very well could help him out in moving >>> these issues to the appellate court and asking them is this the >>> criminalization of disinformation? Are you about to criminalize false >>> political speech? Because in the past, the Supreme Court has been ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========