Path: ...!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: Sun, 07 Apr 2024 09:37:11 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 110
Message-ID: <b6851jt8ori1jk8kvn24p2un8ss2l27139@4ax.com>
References: <utks3h$35980$1@dont-email.me> <17c37b6c29057425$4757$3037545$10d55a65@news.newsdemon.com> <25Ccnb-dnerIwo37nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> <17c3845f233a098e$3282$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com> <0B2dnfnk4IawGI37nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> <17c3b829d977a4bb$361$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2024 13:37:12 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ae93369674d7abc83092727db4f8d031";
	logging-data="2947738"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/I8kzCK6t3w+ReEag6S9jLeGapkYXVhgc="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:90OjFaK8LhK1hAbyjvl6revhO/c=
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 3.3/32.846
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 240407-2, 4/7/2024), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 6444

On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 10:46:12 -0400, moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:

>On 4/5/2024 7:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> On Apr 5, 2024 at 3:57:07 PM PDT, "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".
>> 
>> You can have an opinion that SCOTUS decided wrongly and wish it had made a
>> different ruling but you can't have an opinion that the law is other than it
>> is.
>
>The 'law' is what SCOTUS has opinions about.  

More correctly stated: the law becomes what the SC decides it is.

>I can have *my* opinion 
>about either or both.  Therein, the only "wrong" would be a misquoting.

You can have an opinion about the law but you would be wrong on the
facts of the law if you claim it says other than what the court
decided.