Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: NoBody Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: Inconvenient lefties Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2024 09:37:11 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 110 Message-ID: References: <17c37b6c29057425$4757$3037545$10d55a65@news.newsdemon.com> <25Ccnb-dnerIwo37nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> <17c3845f233a098e$3282$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com> <0B2dnfnk4IawGI37nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> <17c3b829d977a4bb$361$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2024 13:37:12 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ae93369674d7abc83092727db4f8d031"; logging-data="2947738"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/I8kzCK6t3w+ReEag6S9jLeGapkYXVhgc=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:90OjFaK8LhK1hAbyjvl6revhO/c= X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 3.3/32.846 X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 240407-2, 4/7/2024), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Bytes: 6444 On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 10:46:12 -0400, moviePig wrote: >On 4/5/2024 7:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >> On Apr 5, 2024 at 3:57:07 PM PDT, "moviePig" wrote: >> >>> On 4/5/2024 4:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>> moviePig wrote: >>>>> On 4/4/2024 10:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>> In article >>>>>> <17c3425456280d71$51966$3384359$c2d58868@news.newsdemon.com>, >>>>>> moviePig wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 4/4/2024 9:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>>> <17c333d2cd5539d8$169757$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com>, >>>>>>>> moviePig wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 4/4/2024 3:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In article <17c31e036847f89d$33224$111488$4ed50460@news.newsdemon.com>, >>>>>>>>>> moviePig wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2024 7:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2024 2:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 2024 at 8:36:11 AM PDT, "moviePig" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2024 5:50 AM, FPP wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you own it, you can burn it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But not at a gay-pride march under laws against hate speech. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are no laws against hate speech in the United States. If any >>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislature should pass such a law, it would be unconstitutional. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ...until some future SCOTUS rules differently. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Well, any law can be repealed, decision overturned, and constitution >>>>>>>>>>>> amended, but your statement wasn't that of a future wish but as a >>>>>>>>>>>> (fallacious) recitation of the status quo. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I "recited" nothing. I (deliberately) posed a hypothetical. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You didn't indicate at all that it was a hypothetical. You made the >>>>>>>>>> simple statement, in response to Effa saying that if you own (a rainbow >>>>>>>>>> flag) you can burn it, "but not at a gay-pride march under laws against >>>>>>>>>> hate speech". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Where's the hypothetical there? Looks like it's a statement of what you >>>>>>>>>> believe to be the status quo of American law. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I said (and say) that such confrontational flag-burning is what a law >>>>>>>>> against hate speech prohibits. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, and we don't have laws against hate speech because they're >>>>>>>> unconstitutional. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hate speech is protected 1st Amendment speech. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I didn't cite a particular instance because I didn't know of any -- though >>>>>>>>> it now seems I might've found some in Canadian law. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, of course. Canadia has neither a constitution nor a 1st Amendment, >>>>>>>> so its government can and does infringe on their freedom to speak with >>>>>>>> appalling regularity. Not only can the Canadidian government prohibit >>>>>>>> entire categories of speech altogether, it's free to take sides, to >>>>>>>> create double standards where some speech and protests are allowed >>>>>>>> (e.g., pro-Hamas) and other are brutally repressed (e.g., truckers) >>>>>>>> based on whether the government agrees with and approves of the speaker >>>>>>>> or not. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regardless, the point I've always defended is that 'hate speech' is as >>>>>>>>> much of an identifiable phenomenon as, say, pornography, and imo not >>>>>>>>> necessarily entitled *in principle* to "free speech" protections. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And according to 200+ years of 1st Amendment jurisprudence, you'd be >>>>>>>> wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, anytime one disagrees with a published opinion, one is -- according >>>>>>> to that published opinion -- "wrong". >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, when that opinion defines the law of the nation, making directly >>>>>> contradictory claims in Usenet posts does make you wrong. >>>>> >>>>> What *opinion* -- of anything anywhere -- can't be contradicted? Fyi, >>>>> *that* would be a violation of 'free speech'... >>>> >>>> No one's muzzling or prohibiting you from making contradictory statements >>>> regarding the SCOTUS ruling. However, your right to free speech doesn't >>>> immunize you from being wrong or bar others from pointing out your >>>> wrongness. >>> >>> ...where "wrongness" means "of differing opinion". >> >> You can have an opinion that SCOTUS decided wrongly and wish it had made a >> different ruling but you can't have an opinion that the law is other than it >> is. > >The 'law' is what SCOTUS has opinions about. More correctly stated: the law becomes what the SC decides it is. >I can have *my* opinion >about either or both. Therein, the only "wrong" would be a misquoting. You can have an opinion about the law but you would be wrong on the facts of the law if you claim it says other than what the court decided.