Path: Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 02 May 2024 17:33:36 +0000
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: The 1st Amendment Apparently Doesn't Exist in New York Either
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>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Thu, 02 May 2024 10:42:37 -0700
Message-ID: <atropos-4456EC.10423602052024@news.giganews.com>
Lines: 99
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-tsRgw3wLYAJ0491BEX8CggEu5Ze9Bv8NRrtDen67aSQqc0f3BIT4BFbLB8tozoodu7a4flC71c5bsAo!KbYzeSwYLQmaN+5hmI3kcCkC1O6AyGj7F8gXWw9QEdEUaE2WmsDWQfVdbi5vCME00WGvwJD/XAhI!C1w=
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: 6417

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.