Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 18:21:01 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Inconvenient lefties
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
References: <utks3h$35980$1@dont-email.me> <17c2951988fe8093$63098$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com> <uuj8q0$3rjq1$2@dont-email.me> <17c2cf26c4db72b2$7802$1100308$44d50e60@news.newsdemon.com> <uXidnTi_y4kvBpD7nZ2dnZfqn_EAAAAA@giganews.com> <17c2e3252df08033$63111$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com> <6IWdnbOgZM0be5D7nZ2dnZfqnPcAAAAA@giganews.com> <17c31e036847f89d$33224$111488$4ed50460@news.newsdemon.com> <atropos-04B866.12351704042024@news.giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: moviePig <never@nothere.com>
In-Reply-To: <atropos-04B866.12351704042024@news.giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 77
Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!panix!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail
Nntp-Posting-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 22:21:03 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 4371
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17c333d2cd5539d8$169757$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 4773

On 4/4/2024 3:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <17c31e036847f89d$33224$111488$4ed50460@news.newsdemon.com>,
>   moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 4/3/2024 7:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/3/2024 2:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 3, 2024 at 8:36:11 AM PDT, "moviePig" <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/3/2024 5:50 AM, FPP wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/2/24 5:52 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2024 1:16 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Mar 27, 2024 at 3:58:45 PM PDT, moviePig <never@nothere.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>> 3/27/2024 6:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/0FpvG4S
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> moviePig is unparseable here. Is he stating that protestors protest
>>>>>>>>> against their friends and not their enemies? I'm so confused.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm here to help.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In general, people who burn an American flag do so in protest of their
>>>>>>>> own government's actions and policies, while those who burn a rainbow
>>>>>>>> flag do so to express their hate of queers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you own it, you can burn it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But not at a gay-pride march under laws against hate speech.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are no laws against hate speech in the United States. If any
>>>>> legislature should pass such a law, it would be unconstitutional.
>>>>
>>>> ...until some future SCOTUS rules differently.
>>>
>>> Well, any law can be repealed, decision overturned, and constitution
>>> amended, but your statement wasn't that of a future wish but as a
>>> (fallacious) recitation of the status quo.
>>
>> I "recited" nothing. I (deliberately) posed a hypothetical.
> 
> You didn't indicate at all that it was a hypothetical. You made the
> simple statement, in response to Effa saying that if you own (a rainbow
> flag) you can burn it, "but not at a gay-pride march under laws against
> hate speech".
> 
> Where's the hypothetical there? Looks like it's a statement of what you
> believe to be the status quo of American law.

I said (and say) that such confrontational flag-burning is what a law 
against hate speech prohibits.  I didn't cite a particular instance 
because I didn't know of any -- though it now seems I might've found 
some in Canadian law.  Regardless, the point I've always defended is 
that 'hate speech' is as much of an identifiable phenomenon as, say, 
pornography, and imo not necessarily entitled *in principle* to "free 
speech" protections.  And 'principle', not 'status quo', is all that 
interests me here.