Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Inconvenient lefties
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2024 09:43:19 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 94
Message-ID: <9ak21jpu5rrs76vfgisloeld4lrbfaacut@4ax.com>
References: <atropos-04B866.12351704042024@news.giganews.com> <17c333d2cd5539d8$169757$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com> <atropos-C37FD4.18054404042024@news.giganews.com> <17c3425456280d71$51966$3384359$c2d58868@news.newsdemon.com> <atropos-58BFDC.19572804042024@news.giganews.com> <17c37b6c29057425$4757$3037545$10d55a65@news.newsdemon.com> <25Ccnb-dnerIwo37nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> <17c3845f233a098e$3282$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2024 13:43:19 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dea9ab138cad88a30a7675fe4ac0ce21";
	logging-data="2215790"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX193kp2+NYok2rXHgOCcjNxpDtGG2AovX+E="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4id9U2QT58Ltd8Qr1qSxyzh+r/8=
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 3.3/32.846
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 240406-2, 4/6/2024), Outbound message
Bytes: 5711

On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 18:57:07 -0400, 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".
>

That definition is usually reserved for attacks from the left.