Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!news.mixmin.net!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: The 1st Amendment Apparently Doesn't Exist in New York Either
Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 10:12:24 -0400
Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn.
Lines: 94
Message-ID: <v0tika$370i3$1@dont-email.me>
References: <58CcnV8UJNeyK637nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <v0qr1e$2fnq1$2@dont-email.me>
 <-s2cnbpkjOMsoKz7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@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: Wed, 01 May 2024 16:12:27 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1c847c15ff256eabc8e8e0942041b0ec";
	logging-data="3375683"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/HS9ssvDlg0xN6o3vd9wyS"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QnRBHIHgx60a0YeEa7XAaiVTJg8=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <-s2cnbpkjOMsoKz7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com>
Bytes: 5821

On 4/30/24 2:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Apr 30, 2024 at 6:17:34 AM PDT, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 4/30/24 5:13 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>   
>>>   In the U.S., politicians have demanded Internet censorship and have even
>>>   engaged in it themselves. For example, the Supreme Court will soon hear
>>>   Missouri v. Biden, a case in which the federal government coerced social
>>> media
>>>   platforms to censor content it disagreed with-- even if the content was
>>> true.
>>>   
>>>   Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington
>>>   University and free speech advocate who has written extensively on the
>>> issues
>>>   of censorship and limitations on speech, has cautioned the U.S. against
>>>   adopting European censorship laws that allow governments to stop people from
>>>   saying things that governments oppose. Despite what many think, "hate
>>> speech",
>>>   which is subjective, is protected both by the Constitution and by Supreme
>>>   Court precedent.
>>>   
>>>   He wrote:
>>>   
>>>   "There have been calls to ban hate speech for years. Even former journalist
>>>   and Obama State Department official Richard Stengel has insisted that while
>>>   "the 1st Amendment protects 'the thought that we hate'... it should not
>>>   protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another.
>>>   In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw."
>>>   
>>>   Actually, it was not a design flaw but the very essence of the Framers' plan
>>>   for a free society.
>>>   
>>>   The 1st Amendment does not distinguish between types of speech, clearly
>>>   stating: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
>>> religion,
>>>   or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
>>> speech,
>>>   or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
>>>   petition the government for a redress of grievances.'"
>>>   
>>>   He cited Brandenburg v. Ohio, a 1969 case involving "violent speech",
>>> wherein
>>>   the Supreme Court struck down an Ohio law prohibiting public speech that was
>>>   deemed as promoting illegal conduct, specifically ruling for the right of
>>> the
>>>   Ku Klux Klan to speak out, even though it is a hateful organization."
>>>   
>>>   That ruling led to National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie
>>> in
>>>   1977, where the Court unanimously ruled that the city government could not
>>>   constitutionally deny a permit for the American Nazi Party to hold a march
>>> in
>>>   the city streets, even in a city populated heavily by Holocaust survivors.
>>>   
>>>   Turley also noted that in the 2011 case of RAV v. City of St. Paul, the
>>> Court
>>>   struck down a ban on any symbol that 'arouses anger, alarm or resentment in
>>>   others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender, and in Snyder
>>>   v. Phelps, also in 2011, the Court said that "the hateful protests of
>>> Westboro
>>>   Baptist Church were protected".
>>>   
>>>   
>>>
>>> https://www.standingforfreedom.com/2023/11/new-york-announces-it-will-take-citizen-surveillance-and-censorship-to-the-next-level/?twclid=2-6oshw3g6bxsmwqt160vrgne5i
>>
>> Jonathan Turley?  Do better.  You're a better lawyer than Jonathan
>> Turley... and what does that say?
> 
> More of Effa's standard 'blame the messenger' dodge.
> 
> Notice he doesn't (and can't) refute the fact that the Supreme Court cases
> cited by Turley actually exist and the rulings are what they are, so he just
> attacks the person citing them. This is one of the classic rhetorical and
> logical fallacies, one Effa has wholeheartedly embraced because he thinks it
> allows him to win on Usenet on any given day.
> 
> 

Turley is an idiot.  And he reads a calendar about as well as YOU read 
English.

> It took several days for Jonathan Turley to realize that his smoking gun legal theory about Hunter Biden, published in the New York Post, relied on Joe Biden serving as Vice President… in 2018. Fans of linear time might recognize that 2018 was well into the Trump administration and that Joe Biden is not, in fact, Mike Pence.

Prove me wrong.

-- 
"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