Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2024 23:05:58 -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> <17c3b829d977a4bb$361$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com> <atropos-A4D504.11411606042024@kd014101080069.ppp-bb.dion.ne.jp>
Content-Language: en-US
From: moviePig <never@nothere.com>
In-Reply-To: <atropos-A4D504.11411606042024@kd014101080069.ppp-bb.dion.ne.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 33
Path: ...!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: Sun, 07 Apr 2024 03:05:58 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 2235
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17c3e0882b0394ca$5560$3037545$10d55a65@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 2615

On 4/6/2024 2:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <17c3b829d977a4bb$361$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com>,
>   moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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:
> 
>>>>>> 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.
> 
> No, the law is what it is and it's not what you claim. You can have your
> own opinions but you can't have your own facts.

No?  The law *isn't* text that SCOTUS has opinions about? ...as I may?