Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2024 10:46:12 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Inconvenient lefties
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
References: <utks3h$35980$1@dont-email.me> <17c37b6c29057425$4757$3037545$10d55a65@news.newsdemon.com> <25Ccnb-dnerIwo37nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> <17c3845f233a098e$3282$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com> <0B2dnfnk4IawGI37nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: moviePig <never@nothere.com>
In-Reply-To: <0B2dnfnk4IawGI37nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@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: Sat, 06 Apr 2024 14:46:13 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 5508
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17c3b829d977a4bb$361$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 5908

On 4/5/2024 7:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Apr 5, 2024 at 3:57:07 PM PDT, "moviePig" <never@nothere.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 4/5/2024 4:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>   moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>   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'...
>>>   
>>>   No one's muzzling or prohibiting you from making contradictory statements
>>>   regarding the SCOTUS ruling. However, your right to free speech doesn't
>>>   immunize you from being wrong or bar others from pointing out your
>>>   wrongness.
>>
>> ...where "wrongness" means "of differing opinion".
> 
> You can have an opinion that SCOTUS decided wrongly and wish it had made a
> different ruling but you can't have an opinion that the law is other than it
> is.

The 'law' is what SCOTUS has opinions about.  I can have *my* opinion 
about either or both.  Therein, the only "wrong" would be a misquoting.