Date: Sat, 4 May 2024 04:28:03 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: The 1st Amendment Apparently Doesn't Exist in New York Either Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv References: <58CcnV8UJNeyK637nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <-s2cnbpkjOMsoKz7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> Content-Language: en-US From: trotsky In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 151 Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.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: Sat, 04 May 2024 09:28:04 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 7517 Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17cc3f0d3a3ebe29$231965$197378$4ed50460@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 7898 On 5/4/24 3:35 AM, FPP wrote: > On 5/3/24 1:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >> In article , 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 peaceably to 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. >> >> >> >>> 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 >> >> >> >>> So, basically... fuck Turley, and fuck you too. He's a Fox News >>> Suck-ass. >> > >   He got the same comment when he had a vasectomy.