Date: Sat, 4 May 2024 04:37:55 -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$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
From: trotsky <gmsingh@email.com>
In-Reply-To: <v12sj9$jcuh$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 191
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 09:37:56 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 10230
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17cc3f97234b6efc$231970$197378$4ed50460@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 10612

On 5/3/24 9:33 AM, FPP 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
>>>>>>>> peaceablyto 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.
> 
> 
>> falsus in uno doctrine
>> The falsus in uno doctrine is a principle that says if a witness lies 
>> about one important thing, then the jury can assume that everything 
>> they say is a lie. It means that if the jury thinks a witness is 
>> intentionally deceitful, they can ignore everything that witness says.
> 
> 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 
>> indicting Trump for misinformation. He stated that Trump is “being 
>> indicted for spreading lies. That's what the indictment says over and 
>> over again, and they insist that he knew they were lies.” [Fox News, 
>> The Story with Martha MacCallum, 8/3/23]
> 
>> Turley stated Trump is “being charged with lying” and argued the 
>> indictment raises “free speech concerns.” He stated, “There are 
>> legitimate free speech concerns raised by these charges. Essentially 
>> he's being charged with lying and the government is saying you can 
>> make false statements in an election, but not if you know that they're 
>> false. But they don't really establish that he knew that they were 
>> false, even if that theory is correct.” [Fox News, America Reports, 
>> 8/3/23]
> 
>> Turley argued that Trump is protected from charges in the January 6 
>> indictment because of the First Amendment. He claimed, “It does not 
>> appear that this was motivated by new evidence, and in order to get a 
>> conviction, he [Smith] will have to use material that, in my view, is 
>> clearly protected by the First Amendment.” [Fox News, Special Report 
>> with Bret Baier, 8/1/23]
> 
>> Turley floated the idea that indicting Trump and penalizing him over 
>> his actions on January 6 would “criminalize false political speech.” 
>> He claimed, “It's unlikely he [Trump] will get a trial put in front of 
>> the Florida trial, but they very well could help him out in moving 
>> these issues to the appellate court and asking them is this the 
>> criminalization of disinformation? Are you about to criminalize false 
>> political speech? Because in the past, the Supreme Court has been 
>> extremely skeptical of laws that attempt to do that.” [Fox News, Your 
>> World with Neil Cavuto, 8/3/23]
> 
>> Turley pushed the notion that indicting Trump would be a “slippery 
>> slope” to criminalizing incorrect speech. He stated, “If you start to 
>> criminalize issues like that, you find yourself on a slippery slope 
>> where the Department of Justice can arrest politicians for not 
>> accepting what they deem the evident truth.“ [Fox News, The Story with 
>> Martha MacCallum, 8/2/23] 
> 
>> Turley claimed that the indictment and upcoming trial of Trump is a 
>> “free speech killing case.” He said, “If free speech defines us as a 
>> nation, this is a free speech killing case, and we need to deal with 
>> those implications.” [Fox News, America Reports, 8/2/23]
> 
>> On Fox host Brian Kilmeade’s radio show, Turley accused Smith of 
>> inventing new law to go after Trump and attacking the First Amendment. 
>> Turley stated, “Smith is trying to create new law here, and he doesn't 
>> cite any new evidence. That should disturb people. There's got to be 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========