Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 17:10:38 -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> <uubnns$1q8ej$5@dont-email.me> <atropos-729A17.12392531032024@69.muaa.rchm.washdctt.dsl.att.net>
Content-Language: en-US
From: moviePig <never@nothere.com>
In-Reply-To: <atropos-729A17.12392531032024@69.muaa.rchm.washdctt.dsl.att.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 123
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: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 21:10:39 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 6648
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17c1f5a8f93fd1c5$139429$3265$48d50260@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 7048

On 3/31/2024 3:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <uubnns$1q8ej$5@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/30/24 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.
>>>
>> National Security secrets aren't a march.
> 
> We're not talking about national security secrets here, you
> smooth-brained dipshit.
> 
> We're talking about burning gay pride flags, moviePig's hypothetical
> fire on a black family's lawn, and hate speech.
> 
> The Skokie decision was about speech, not the press or national security
> secrets. If you're going to interject your ignorant bullshit, at least
> try and make it relevant to what's being discussed.

Is the burning cross punished differently from the bonfire?  If so, why?