Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 22:37:43 -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$46d50c60@news.newsdemon.com> <N4mcnaNh6rVJdJj7nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> <uu6j1t$b577$12@dont-email.me> <atropos-2A7F38.11023029032024@news.giganews.com> <uu9dbg$1363u$6@dont-email.me> <atropos-BD6635.13024030032024@69.muaa.rchm.washdctt.dsl.att.net>
Content-Language: en-US
From: moviePig <never@nothere.com>
In-Reply-To: <atropos-BD6635.13024030032024@69.muaa.rchm.washdctt.dsl.att.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 110
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: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 02:37:43 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 6009
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17c1b8ed958fbb7c$126120$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 6391

On 3/30/2024 4:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <uu9dbg$1363u$6@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/29/24 2:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <uu6j1t$b577$12@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/28/24 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.
>>>>>
>>>> So change it to incitement to commit a crime by speech, then.
>>>
>>> That's our Effa, always trying to get around the 1st Amendment because,
>>> like most leftists, he fundamentally hates the idea of not being able to
>>> control what people can and cannot say.
>>>
>>> (And no, you smooth-brained dimwit, a charge of incitement can't be
>>> sustained without a crowd present to, ya know, incite.)
>>>
>> Scalia told us that amendments have limits and are subject to regulation
>> by the courts.
> 
> Yes. And in the case of hate speech, the Court has spoken: National
> Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977)
> 
> That case set the standard and the Court has never overturned or limited
> it in any way in the intervening 47 years. In fact, whenever the subject
> has come up, the Court has reinforced and reaffirmed the Skokie ruling.

"Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993), was a case in which the 
United States Supreme Court held that enhanced penalties for hate crimes 
do not violate criminal defendants' First Amendment rights.[1] It was a 
landmark precedent pertaining to First Amendment free speech arguments 
for hate crime legislation."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_v._Mitchell