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: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 07:32:18 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <cj9d0j9bek3091l3r192u2bsaf9ektvb7s@4ax.com>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 11:32:21 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2d28ac9f1a6d4e8148c88c68a6e5bd98";
	logging-data="282368"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/J5Y8aNLjPqWofFzz8z/KuPGXy5rSzT3I="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3IeXK4Nomr5zEUUr+54/EHwOYSo=
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 240329-2, 3/29/2024), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 3.3/32.846
Bytes: 4379

On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 17:06:20 -0400, 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?
>


Both are illegal fires which is the crime.  Why do you demand extra
penalties?