Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2024 04:40:53 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Inconvenient lefties
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
References: <utks3h$35980$1@dont-email.me> <uu6j1t$b577$12@dont-email.me> <atropos-2A7F38.11023029032024@news.giganews.com> <uu9d90$1363u$5@dont-email.me> <apmcndAF5Nsb5Y37nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: trotsky <gmsingh@email.com>
In-Reply-To: <apmcndAF5Nsb5Y37nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 64
Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail
Nntp-Posting-Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2024 09:40:53 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 3330
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17c3a7807074107b$3392$1100308$44d50e60@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 3763

On 4/5/24 5:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Mar 30, 2024 at 9:05:52 AM PDT, "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:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   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.)
>>
>> Your side is banning words, and banning books, and banning curriculum
>> there, Sparky.
> 
> Who's banning words and policing the language?
> 
> 
> https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1776348840171347968/vid/avc1/482x270/7c-0yRyX-G2NI4o-.mp4?tag=14
> 
> CT State Senator Martha Marx (D) says only using the term "pregnant mother" is
> going down a "slippery slope" because then we also have to include "pregnant
> father".
> 
> She proposes the government only use the term "pregnant person" because it's
> most inclusive and covers "every person that will show up with a baby in their
> womb".


A state senator said that?  And you find this especially significant 
why, exactly?  Sounds like you need more civics lessons.