Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 18:34:50 -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> <17c109af9b28102b$53484$2218499$46d50c60@news.newsdemon.com> <N4mcnaNh6rVJdJj7nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: moviePig <never@nothere.com>
In-Reply-To: <N4mcnaNh6rVJdJj7nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 77
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: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:34:53 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 4126
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17c10e83f220909a$46168$3081049$52d51861@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 4528

On 3/28/2024 6:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> Those are crimes, not speech. You didn't ask about hate crimes. You asked
> about hate speech.

I'd have thought the two crimes to be materially identical, with the 
important difference being that one clearly contains "hate speech".