Path: ...!news.snarked.org!tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!69.80.99.26.MISMATCH!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 17:54:43 +0000
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Inconvenient lefties
References: <utks3h$35980$1@dont-email.me> <17c0c13d249c8eca$72548$1768716$4ad50060@news.newsdemon.com> <atropos-268A04.16583927032024@news.giganews.com> <17c0ceb693286352$341$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com> <2MucnTxnR-96cJn7nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> <17c0fc54e55b8534$37200$3384359$c2d58868@news.newsdemon.com> <atropos-95DBF9.11315628032024@news.giganews.com> <17c109af9b28102b$53484$2218499$46d50c60@news.newsdemon.com> <N4mcnaNh6rVJdJj7nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> <uu6j1t$b577$12@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 11:02:31 -0700
Message-ID: <atropos-2A7F38.11023029032024@news.giganews.com>
Lines: 85
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-eeitEji5ceG0iFiDZG2i38tqEY9QOrNf60rC3UA4pZNMpocPqZ2kDQxXHSjvHVi2DI98iCKkISyTn5N!lTcqdOXSg4/9Yg6IX10DMAbP2N5M0upwQ/5CzPQb0lB1T3q+mnCfWLI7Cw87I3gLRx2qrUyR7qAr!Sdw=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 5311

In article <uu6j1t$b577$12@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> 
wrote:

> On 3/28/24 6:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
> >> On 3/28/2024 2:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> <17c0fc54e55b8534$37200$3384359$c2d58868@news.newsdemon.com>,
> >>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 3/28/2024 12:11 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>> On Mar 27, 2024 at 8:05:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <never@nothere.com> 
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 3/27/2024 7:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>> <17c0c13d249c8eca$72548$1768716$4ad50060@news.newsdemon.com>,
> >>>>>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 3/27/2024 6:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> In article <uu22s3$32lii$2@dont-email.me>,
> >>>>>>>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Last Friday, a Chicago alderman (there are cockroaches with 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> higher social standing) gave a speech at a rally outside city
> >>>>>>>>>>>> hall condemning Biden and support for Israel in the war against 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hamas. A veteran had burned a special American flag
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Why is it that burning the American flag is protected speech, but
> >>>>>>>>>>> if you burn an Alphabet Mafia rainbow flag, you can get arrested 
> >>>>>>>>>>> for a hate crime?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You mean a flag that does not belong to you, not your own flag.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> No, I mean any rainbow flag. If you go buy one yourself, then take 
> >>>>>>>>> it to an anti-troon protest and burn it, it's a hate crime.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But if you buy an American flag and take it to an Antifa riot and
> >>>>>>>>> burn it, protected speech.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The former action is one of hate, the latter is one of protest.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What if the former is one of protest, too?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That'd be for a judge to be convinced of
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Since when do I have to convince the government of the reasons for my
> >>>>> speech to keep from being jailed for it?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Congress shall make no law..."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> ...who might ask, e.g., whether the defendant *knew* how the act would
> >>>>>> be perceived.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My right to free speech isn't dependent on how someone else-- with an
> >>>>> agenda of their own-- might perceive my words.
> >>>>
> >>>> Are you disputing laws against hate speech or how they're enforced?
> >>>
> >>> Both. Hate speech is protected speech per the Supreme Court and any laws
> >>> to the contrary are unconstitutional.
> >>>
> >>> National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43
> >>> (1977)
> >>
> >> One cold night, a homeless man builds and lights a bonfire that destroys
> >> a family's manicured lawn. Elsewhere, a well-known redneck erects and
> >> burns a wooden cross, destroying the lawn of a black family.
> >>
> >> To your mind, are these infractions fully equivalent to each other?
> > 
> > Those are crimes, not speech. You didn't ask about hate crimes. You asked
> > about hate speech.
> > 
> So change it to incitement to commit a crime by speech, then.

That's our Effa, always trying to get around the 1st Amendment because, 
like most leftists, he fundamentally hates the idea of not being able to 
control what people can and cannot say.

(And no, you smooth-brained dimwit, a charge of incitement can't be 
sustained without a crowd present to, ya know, incite.)