Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 17:06:20 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Inconvenient lefties
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
References: <utks3h$35980$1@dont-email.me> <17c0c13d249c8eca$72548$1768716$4ad50060@news.newsdemon.com> <atropos-268A04.16583927032024@news.giganews.com> <17c0ceb693286352$341$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com> <2MucnTxnR-96cJn7nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> <17c0fc54e55b8534$37200$3384359$c2d58868@news.newsdemon.com> <atropos-95DBF9.11315628032024@news.giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: moviePig <never@nothere.com>
In-Reply-To: <atropos-95DBF9.11315628032024@news.giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 69
Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!panix!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail
Nntp-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 21:06:23 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 3607
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17c109af9b28102b$53484$2218499$46d50c60@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 4009

On 3/28/2024 2:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article
> <17c0fc54e55b8534$37200$3384359$c2d58868@news.newsdemon.com>,
>   moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/28/2024 12:11 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Mar 27, 2024 at 8:05:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/27/2024 7:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>    In article
>>>>>    <17c0c13d249c8eca$72548$1768716$4ad50060@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>>>>      moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>>    
>>>>>>    On 3/27/2024 6:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>    In article <uu22s3$32lii$2@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>       "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>    Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> 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?