Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2024 03:37:49 -0500
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> <uuef1d$2h9u5$1@dont-email.me> <atropos-C32B6B.12142301042024@news.giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: trotsky <gmsingh@email.com>
In-Reply-To: <atropos-C32B6B.12142301042024@news.giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 134
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: Tue, 02 Apr 2024 08:37:49 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 7309
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17c269bd3ccde2ff$157280$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 7690

On 4/1/24 2:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <uuef1d$2h9u5$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/31/24 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.
>>>
>> You were making that exact case in another thread.
> 
> But not here, dipshit. We're talking about something else *here*.


Yes, are you now claiming Usenet has no thread drift?  Because that 
would be exceptionally stupid even by the low bar you've set.