Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Make It Make Sense
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2025 13:59:15 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <103mm5j$9ilu$1@dont-email.me>
References: <102tak5$2sq95$2@dont-email.me> <103k7f0$3koun$1@dont-email.me>
 <103kdne$3m7lt$1@dont-email.me> <103khrm$3n74p$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: nobody@nowhere.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2025 19:59:16 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8e8e608aa64edf65c43acf54d64ab78c";
	logging-data="314046"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ITj7jMk/GYMdfpQTdD5LiDv0VctdKIdU="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:O5JRMgXq58s8NRwWiGzjZJ1B2X8=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <103khrm$3n74p$1@dont-email.me>

On 6/26/2025 6:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2025 at 2:22:51 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 6/26/2025 3:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>   On Jun 17, 2025 at 8:08:53 PM PDT, "BTR1701" <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>   
>>>>   https://ibb.co/RknV5xzr
>>>>
>>>>   Misdemeanor charge + $2000 fine
>>>>
>>>>   https://ibb.co/SD6RcDVp
>>>>
>>>>   Man in Rhode Island was arrested after he allegedly made a skid mark on a
>>>>   Pride Rainbow crosswalk with his car.
>>>>
>>>>   The city allowing a "pride" crosswalk in the first place is a 1A violation.
>>>>   If
>>>>   I asked for a permit to paint an anti-troon mural in the crosswalk (or a
>>>>   pro-gun/2A message), I bet they wouldn't give me one. The government is
>>>>   allowing some political and social messages but not others based on their
>>>> own
>>>>   politics.
>>>>
>>>>   Where are the DOJ lawsuits against rainbow murals being painted on city
>>>>   streets (to the exclusion of all other non-'progressive' messages) and then
>>>>   treated like religious icons?
>>>   
>>>   It's happened again.
>>>   
>>>
>>> https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1937932161073463297/vid/avc1/1080x1920/6o-22WzrJXx4UGjG.mp4
>>>   
>>>   Teenagers rip up some rainbow flags. Four are arrested and, according to the
>>>   Atlanta PD, a manhunt-- yes, you read that right-- is on for the other two.
>>>   
>>>   My first question is, of course, arrested for what?
>>>   
>>>   Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). The Supreme Court ruled that flag
>>>   desecration is protected speech under the 1st Amendment: "It's both symbolic
>>>   speech and political speech."
>>>   
>>>   If it's legal to desecrate the U.S. flag, it's legal to desecrate the flag
>>> of
>>>   the Password People.
>>>   
>>>   "But wait," the apologists like FPP will say, "It's not legal to destroy
>>>   something that doesn't belong to you. These kids took those flags off the
>>>   streetlight poles! That's a crime!"
>>>   
>>>   While this may be true, it's a crime that's strangely only enforced against
>>>   people hostile to the 'progressive' Agenda:
>>>   
>>>   Anti-ICE protester pulls down a U.S. flag from a government pole and burns
>>> it:
>>>   no consequences.
>>>   
>>>   Teenager pulls down a gay Rainbow Mafia flag from a government pole and rips
>>>   it up: straight to prison.
>>
>> Afaics, FPP is present only in your recall.
> 
> No, I've got a digital archive of all my posts. My newsreader auto-copies
> every post I make into a text document on my computer. That necessarily means
> I have a whole lot of FPP's claims saved as well, quoted in posts in which I
> responded to him.

But you're speaking as though he were here and speaking for himself.


>> But, no, it's not legal to burn the U.S. flag in a fireworks factory. Your
>> rainbow-burning teen
>> would've been charged with a hate crime, not property destruction.
> 
> He can't be charged with only a hate crime. Hate crime is an enhancement to a
> predicate crime. One has to be charged with a crime first and only then can
> the hate enhancement be applied. But nevertheless, the enhancement is for the
> speech, the thought, the emotion, therefore speech is being prosecuted. The
> extra punishment you get over and above what you would get for the theft of
> the flag alone is punishment for your speech, which should not be allowed
> under the 1st Amendment.

Well, that "enhancement" structure is twisted logic, imo, but so be it. 
I'm pointing out that the presence of a flag has no bearing on the 
actions we'd (presumably) like to discourage.