Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 22:46:51 -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> <17c333d2cd5539d8$169757$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com> <atropos-C37FD4.18054404042024@news.giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: moviePig <never@nothere.com>
In-Reply-To: <atropos-C37FD4.18054404042024@news.giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 102
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: Fri, 05 Apr 2024 02:46:53 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 5570
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17c3425456280d71$51966$3384359$c2d58868@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 5972

On 4/4/2024 9:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article
> <17c333d2cd5539d8$169757$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com>,
>   moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Yes, and we don't have laws against hate speech because they're
> unconstitutional.
> 
> Hate speech is protected 1st Amendment speech.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Well, of course. Canadia has neither a constitution nor a 1st Amendment,
> so its government can and does infringe on their freedom to speak with
> appalling regularity. Not only can the Canadidian government prohibit
> entire categories of speech altogether, it's free to take sides, to
> create double standards where some speech and protests are allowed
> (e.g., pro-Hamas) and other are brutally repressed (e.g., truckers)
> based on whether the government agrees with and approves of the speaker
> or not.
> 
>> 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 according to 200+ years of 1st Amendment jurisprudence, you'd be
> wrong.

Yes, anytime one disagrees with a published opinion, one is -- according 
to that published opinion -- "wrong".