Path: ...!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: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 12:07:12 -0400 Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn. Lines: 100 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: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 16:07:13 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1fe43f605f9dc30c52d895c842fa8a60"; logging-data="1153150"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18AqL4EiCqorS9XNv+l09Wp" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:/V/0mdBaouJGRdMb/gcU565S+/U= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 5768 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. I mean, he was the patron Saint of Conservatives, right? -- "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