Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:07:54 -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> <b6851jt8ori1jk8kvn24p2un8ss2l27139@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: moviePig <never@nothere.com>
In-Reply-To: <b6851jt8ori1jk8kvn24p2un8ss2l27139@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 115
Path: ...!news.misty.com!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: Sun, 07 Apr 2024 19:07:55 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 6295
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17c415065321e725$5193$1768716$4ad50060@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 6711

On 4/7/2024 9:37 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 10:46:12 -0400, 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:
>>>>>>    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.
> 
> More correctly stated: the law becomes what the SC decides it is.
> 
>> I can have *my* opinion
>> about either or both.  Therein, the only "wrong" would be a misquoting.
> 
> You can have an opinion about the law but you would be wrong on the
> facts of the law if you claim it says other than what the court
> decided.

....until a later court says I'm right.  Keep infallibility to the Pope.