Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 16:13:07 -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> <17c3425456280d71$51966$3384359$c2d58868@news.newsdemon.com> <atropos-58BFDC.19572804042024@news.giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: moviePig <never@nothere.com>
In-Reply-To: <atropos-58BFDC.19572804042024@news.giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 82
Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!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: Fri, 05 Apr 2024 20:13:07 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 4671
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17c37b6c29057425$4757$3037545$10d55a65@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 5076

On 4/4/2024 10:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article
> <17c3425456280d71$51966$3384359$c2d58868@news.newsdemon.com>,
>   moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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".
> 
> Yes, when that opinion defines the law of the nation, making directly
> contradictory claims in Usenet posts does make you wrong.

What *opinion* -- of anything anywhere -- can't be contradicted?  Fyi, 
*that* would be a violation of 'free speech'...