Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Inconvenient lefties
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 12:07:12 -0400
Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn.
Lines: 100
Message-ID: <uu9dbg$1363u$6@dont-email.me>
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>
Reply-To: fredp1571@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 16:07:13 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1fe43f605f9dc30c52d895c842fa8a60";
	logging-data="1153150"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18AqL4EiCqorS9XNv+l09Wp"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/V/0mdBaouJGRdMb/gcU565S+/U=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <atropos-2A7F38.11023029032024@news.giganews.com>
Bytes: 5768

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.

I mean, he was the patron Saint of Conservatives, right?

-- 
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC 
Bible  25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0