Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.hasname.com!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: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 19:31:45 +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> <atropos-2A7F38.11023029032024@news.giganews.com> <uu9dbg$1363u$6@dont-email.me> <atropos-BD6635.13024030032024@69.muaa.rchm.washdctt.dsl.att.net> <uubnns$1q8ej$5@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 12:39:25 -0700
Message-ID: <atropos-729A17.12392531032024@69.muaa.rchm.washdctt.dsl.att.net>
Lines: 118
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-QgHDk8fckR4WCvSJgYufBlJaa7dCFzJeHBjLKkLgwOLtpP+xIjJo78JMG1bWAPK/tjMazbdLuUINqFd!b2tK5mwna/m0eGn4RtTyG6M3zqfn84lN8Ruy/WWXziGVoV7rpN0irdxuSyKPYp8KKH+kQQpEppDL!iGLmX9MfmVbJoyWFfTpFWn1g
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: 7155

In article <uubnns$1q8ej$5@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> 
wrote:

> On 3/30/24 4:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <uu9dbg$1363u$6@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> On 3/29/24 2:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <uu6j1t$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.)
> >>>
> >> Scalia told us that amendments have limits and are subject to regulation
> >> by the courts.
> > 
> > Yes. And in the case of hate speech, the Court has spoken: National
> > Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977)
> > 
> > That case set the standard and the Court has never overturned or limited
> > it in any way in the intervening 47 years. In fact, whenever the subject
> > has come up, the Court has reinforced and reaffirmed the Skokie ruling.
> > 
> National Security secrets aren't a march.

We're not talking about national security secrets here, you 
smooth-brained dipshit.

We're talking about burning gay pride flags, moviePig's hypothetical 
fire on a black family's lawn, and hate speech.

The Skokie decision was about speech, not the press or national security 
secrets. If you're going to interject your ignorant bullshit, at least 
try and make it relevant to what's being discussed.