Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 17:10:38 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Inconvenient lefties Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv 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> Content-Language: en-US From: moviePig In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 123 Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.hasname.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail Nntp-Posting-Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 21:10:39 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 6648 Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17c1f5a8f93fd1c5$139429$3265$48d50260@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 7048 On 3/31/2024 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. Is the burning cross punished differently from the bonfire? If so, why?