Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2024 04:40:53 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Inconvenient lefties Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv References: Content-Language: en-US From: trotsky In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 64 Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.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, 06 Apr 2024 09:40:53 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 3330 X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17c3a7807074107b$3392$1100308$44d50e60@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 3763 On 4/5/24 5:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > On Mar 30, 2024 at 9:05:52 AM PDT, "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: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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.) >> >> Your side is banning words, and banning books, and banning curriculum >> there, Sparky. > > Who's banning words and policing the language? > > > https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1776348840171347968/vid/avc1/482x270/7c-0yRyX-G2NI4o-.mp4?tag=14 > > CT State Senator Martha Marx (D) says only using the term "pregnant mother" is > going down a "slippery slope" because then we also have to include "pregnant > father". > > She proposes the government only use the term "pregnant person" because it's > most inclusive and covers "every person that will show up with a baby in their > womb". A state senator said that? And you find this especially significant why, exactly? Sounds like you need more civics lessons.