Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.mixmin.net!feed.abavia.com!abe004.abavia.com!abe002.abavia.com!tr1.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!69.80.99.22.MISMATCH!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:37:55 +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> <MvjNN.729424$xHn7.137241@fx14.iad>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 12:45:46 -0700
Message-ID: <atropos-935126.12454528032024@news.giganews.com>
Lines: 76
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-BbEcnv46ObuuqIv6T1W+Fqh0d7kYQA4i400rcE2O7cenC6u+YkK4JcSm9l0OShMXC4aSLGmqy6iePSz!KUjnOZP4ZRnouMyLB8i1sOYrQEXCRex5Ch2LVUs49zpoCvOViNvPajcNLA6mXfmvIQGXJYCuevX0!rcM=
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: 4740

In article <MvjNN.729424$xHn7.137241@fx14.iad>,
 trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:

> On 3/28/24 1:31 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)
> 
> The Skokie case had to do with them marching, not speaking.

It had to do with both. Both are covered under the 1st Amendment, Hutt.

What? You think they had nothing to say while marching? That they just 
silently walked down the street? 

With stupidity like that on display, Hutt, it's actually amazing that 
you keep virtually showing that camel snatch you call a face here in 
rec.arts.tv. You're about as welcome here as Jerry Sandusky at a Boy 
Scout jamboree.