Date: Sat, 4 May 2024 04:28:03 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: The 1st Amendment Apparently Doesn't Exist in New York Either
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
References: <58CcnV8UJNeyK637nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <v0qr1e$2fnq1$2@dont-email.me> <-s2cnbpkjOMsoKz7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> <v0tika$370i3$1@dont-email.me> <atropos-3C5256.10050501052024@news.giganews.com> <v106rl$3stcm$1@dont-email.me> <atropos-4456EC.10423602052024@news.giganews.com> <v12sj9$jcuh$1@dont-email.me> <atropos-0F55A2.10511603052024@news.giganews.com> <v14rvn$146nv$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
From: trotsky <gmsingh@email.com>
In-Reply-To: <v14rvn$146nv$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 151
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.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: Sat, 04 May 2024 09:28:04 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 7517
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17cc3f0d3a3ebe29$231965$197378$4ed50460@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 7898

On 5/4/24 3:35 AM, FPP wrote:
> On 5/3/24 1:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <v12sj9$jcuh$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/2/24 1:42 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article <v106rl$3stcm$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/1/24 1:05 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> In article <v0tika$370i3$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/30/24 2:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Apr 30, 2024 at 6:17:34 AM PDT, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> 
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/30/24 5:13 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In the U.S., politicians have demanded Internet censorship and 
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> even engaged in it themselves. For example, the Supreme Court 
>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>> soon hear Missouri v. Biden, a case in which the federal 
>>>>>>>>>> government
>>>>>>>>>> coerced social media platforms to censor content it disagreed 
>>>>>>>>>> with--
>>>>>>>>>> even if the content was true.
>>>>>>>>>> Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George 
>>>>>>>>>> Washington
>>>>>>>>>> University and free speech advocate who has written 
>>>>>>>>>> extensively on
>>>>>>>>>> the issues of censorship and limitations on speech, has 
>>>>>>>>>> cautioned the
>>>>>>>>>> U.S. against adopting European censorship laws that allow 
>>>>>>>>>> governments
>>>>>>>>>> to stop people from saying things that governments oppose. 
>>>>>>>>>> Despite
>>>>>>>>>> what many think, "hate speech", which is subjective, is protected
>>>>>>>>>> both by the Constitution and by Supreme Court precedent.
>>>>>>>>>> He wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "There have been calls to ban hate speech for years. Even former
>>>>>>>>>> journalist and Obama State Department official Richard Stengel 
>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>> insisted that while "the 1st Amendment protects 'the thought 
>>>>>>>>>> that we
>>>>>>>>>> hate'... it should not protect hateful speech that can cause 
>>>>>>>>>> violence
>>>>>>>>>> by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a
>>>>>>>>>> megaphone, that seems like a design flaw."
>>>>>>>>>> Actually, it was not a design flaw but the very essence of the
>>>>>>>>>> Framers' plan for a free society.
>>>>>>>>>> The 1st Amendment does not distinguish between types of speech,
>>>>>>>>>> clearly stating: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an
>>>>>>>>>> establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise 
>>>>>>>>>> thereof;
>>>>>>>>>> or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right
>>>>>>>>>> of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the 
>>>>>>>>>> government
>>>>>>>>>> for a redress of grievances.'"
>>>>>>>>>> He cited Brandenburg v. Ohio, a 1969 case involving "violent 
>>>>>>>>>> speech",
>>>>>>>>>> wherein the Supreme Court struck down an Ohio law prohibiting 
>>>>>>>>>> public
>>>>>>>>>> speech that was deemed as promoting illegal conduct, specifically
>>>>>>>>>> ruling for the right of the Ku Klux Klan to speak out, even 
>>>>>>>>>> though
>>>>>>>>>> it is a hateful organization."
>>>>>>>>>> That ruling led to National Socialist Party of America v. 
>>>>>>>>>> Village of
>>>>>>>>>> Skokie in 1977, where the Court unanimously ruled that the city
>>>>>>>>>> government could not constitutionally deny a permit for the 
>>>>>>>>>> American
>>>>>>>>>> Nazi Party to hold a march in the city streets, even in a city
>>>>>>>>>> populated heavily by Holocaust survivors.
>>>>>>>>>> Turley also noted that in the 2011 case of RAV v. City of St. 
>>>>>>>>>> Paul,
>>>>>>>>>> the Court struck down a ban on any symbol that 'arouses anger, 
>>>>>>>>>> alarm
>>>>>>>>>> or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, 
>>>>>>>>>> religion
>>>>>>>>>> or gender, and in Snyder v. Phelps, also in 2011, the Court said
>>>>>>>>>> that "the hateful protests of Westboro Baptist Church were
>>>>>>>>>> protected".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jonathan Turley? Do better. You're a better lawyer than Jonathan
>>>>>>>>> Turley... and what does that say?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> More of Effa's standard 'blame the messenger' dodge.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Notice he doesn't (and can't) refute the fact that the Supreme 
>>>>>>>> Court
>>>>>>>> cases cited by Turley actually exist and the rulings are what 
>>>>>>>> they are,
>>>>>>>> so he just attacks the person citing them. This is one of the 
>>>>>>>> classic
>>>>>>>> rhetorical and logical fallacies, one Effa has wholeheartedly 
>>>>>>>> embraced
>>>>>>>> because he thinks it allows him to win on Usenet on any given day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Turley is an idiot. And he reads a calendar about as well as YOU 
>>>>>>> read
>>>>>>> English.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More of Effa's standard 'blame the messenger' dodge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Notice he doesn't (and can't) refute the fact that the Supreme Court
>>>>>> cases cited by Turley actually exist and the rulings are what they 
>>>>>> are,
>>>>>> so he just attacks the person citing them. This is one of the classic
>>>>>> rhetorical and logical fallacies, one Effa has wholeheartedly 
>>>>>> embraced
>>>>>> because he thinks it allows him to win on Usenet on any given day.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Turley is like every MAGA. A bullshitter and a clown.
>>>>>
>>>>> He made a learned legal argument that Biden was guilty when he wasn't
>>>>> even in office. That's bush league.
>>>>
>>>> And here Effa continues to employ his typical 'blame the messenger'
>>>> dodge rather than address the substance of the matter asserted.
>>>>
>>>> Notice that he doesn't (and can't) refute the fact that the Supreme
>>>> Court cases cited by Turley actually exist and the rulings are what 
>>>> they
>>>> are, so he just attacks the person citing them. This is one of the
>>>> classic rhetorical and logical fallacies, one Effa has wholeheartedly
>>>> embraced because he thinks it allows him to win on Usenet on any given
>>>> day.
>>
>>> This is the substance of the matter. Turley is a MAGA liar.
>>> Hey, here's a legal axiom... let me know if you've ever heard it,
>>> counselor.
>>
>> <snip irrelevancies>
>>
>>> Look it up. Turley is a liar in a lot more than one thing. Want me to
>>> list a few, or do you prefer to run away before I do it?
>>>
>>>> Turley incorrectly claimed that DOJ special counsel Jack Smith was
>>
>> <snip even more lengthy irrelevancies>
>>
>>> So, basically... fuck Turley, and fuck you too. He's a Fox News 
>>> Suck-ass.
>>
> 
>   <snip irrelevancies>


He got the same comment when he had a vasectomy.