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: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 09:17:25 -0400
Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn.
Lines: 138
Message-ID: <uubnp5$1q8ej$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>
 <uu9dbg$1363u$6@dont-email.me>
 <atropos-BD6635.13024030032024@69.muaa.rchm.washdctt.dsl.att.net>
 <17c1b8e531a9af05$126119$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.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: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 13:17:26 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="555770eab26ccfe31c52df236e9c19cb";
	logging-data="1909203"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19mMIDljeF3RpYn7CGT/bkS"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jFLTiuBjsNU6VPRplJic6UcfemM=
In-Reply-To: <17c1b8e531a9af05$126119$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7405

On 3/30/24 10:37 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 3/30/2024 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.
> 
> "Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993), was a case in which the 
> United States Supreme Court held that enhanced penalties for hate crimes 
> do not violate criminal defendants' First Amendment rights.[1] It was a 
> landmark precedent pertaining to First Amendment free speech arguments 
> for hate crime legislation."
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_v._Mitchell
> 
> 


He's been told this for decades too.  Begin to see a pattern here?

-- 
"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