Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Inconvenient lefties
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 22:45:09 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <uukm5l$6l5n$1@dont-email.me>
References: <utks3h$35980$1@dont-email.me> <uuj8q0$3rjq1$2@dont-email.me> <17c2cf26c4db72b2$7802$1100308$44d50e60@news.newsdemon.com> <uXidnTi_y4kvBpD7nZ2dnZfqn_EAAAAA@giganews.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2024 22:45:10 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="519956b6c4c678e08260cff4909b4672";
	logging-data="218295"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18kS3xEUpxt9WpVCEv4nJb3jyYpZQ7acxk="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/uK9bkVdPnLjIgeNAYazQSmcVg0=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Bytes: 4654

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> 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:
>>>On 4/2/24 5:52 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>On 4/2/2024 1:16 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>Mar 27, 2024 at 3:58:45 PM PDT, moviePig <never@nothere.com>:
>>>>>>>3/27/2024 6:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>>>>>>>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>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.

>>>>>>https://ibb.co/0FpvG4S

>>>>>moviePig is unparseable here. Is he stating that protestors protest
>>>>>against their friends and not their enemies? I'm so confused.

>>>>I'm here to help.

>>>>In general, people who burn an American flag do so in protest of their 
>>>>own government's actions and policies, while those who burn a rainbow 
>>>>flag do so to express their hate of queers.

>>>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.

No. I'm sorry. You keep trying to fix moviePig but he's still broken.

How does moviePig know what emotion the flag burner is expressing? The
flag burning in question was by a veteran of the Afghanistan war
protesting massive deaths of Palestinian civilians in Gaza by Israel's
military counterstrikes.

That isn't protesting an American government action and policy, is it,
but what an ally is doing. So moviePig's statement is inapplicable to
what I had raised.

It's also not generally opposed to civilian deaths. Clearly the Israeli
women at the kibbutz who were raped, tortured, kidnapped, and killed are
civilians, but for some reason, they don't count. Nor do the other
civilians were were kidnapped or killed by Hamas count.

It's so strange.

Also, these protestors have said nothing, absolutely nothing, with
respect to Russia killing massive numbers of civilians in Ukraine
because they target civilians in high-rise housing and infrastructure.
Ukraine isn't comparable to Gaza. There are no military targets within
civilian areas.

It's so strange. They care about civilian deaths in one place but not
all those other places.

Therefore, based on moviePig logic, we conclude that this instance of
protest is hate speech against Israelis or all Jews generally, in
violation of the 14th and 1/2 amendment.

Not being moviePig, I cannot attribute motive to burning a rainbow flag.
For all we know, no one cares about the sexual proclivities of
consenting adults in their own bedrooms but may indeed care very much
about library programs promoting interactions with very young children.

But yes, anything that's not an expression of sufficient love and
acceptance of this kind of behavior in public toward your own children
is unconstitutional speech under the 14th and 1/2 amendment.

I don't understand how moviePig believes the 14 and 1/2 amendment
doesn't apply in the first instance but does in the second.

It's so very very strange.