Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 15:49:40 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Inconvenient lefties
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
References: <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> <17c10e83f220909a$46168$3081049$52d51861@news.newsdemon.com> <qm9d0j91rks5b71kgdt83ctdakktdq8dpq@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: moviePig <never@nothere.com>
In-Reply-To: <qm9d0j91rks5b71kgdt83ctdakktdq8dpq@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 87
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail
Nntp-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 19:49:43 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 4576
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17c1541544a78cce$43424$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 4956

On 3/29/2024 7:33 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 18:34:50 -0400, moviePig <never@nothere.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> 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".
>>
> 
> The fun thing about "hate speech" is that it relies on interpretation.
> It varies from person to person.

*All* laws rely on interpretation.  Every time.