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: The 1st Amendment Apparently Doesn't Exist in New York Either
Date: Sat, 4 May 2024 22:50:27 -0400
Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn.
Lines: 216
Message-ID: <v16s5j$1l1vk$2@dont-email.me>
References: <58CcnV8UJNeyK637nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <v0qr1e$2fnq1$2@dont-email.me>
 <-s2cnbpkjOMsoKz7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <v0tika$370i3$1@dont-email.me>
 <atropos-3C5256.10050501052024@news.giganews.com>
 <v106rl$3stcm$1@dont-email.me>
 <atropos-4456EC.10423602052024@news.giganews.com>
 <v12sj9$jcuh$1@dont-email.me>
 <17cc3f97234b6efc$231970$197378$4ed50460@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, 05 May 2024 04:50:27 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c0f541925df08c960af63bbaee4b4974";
	logging-data="1738740"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+jEdIwyYnEwFpgDnp+hOZZ"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:09Z0kWM+0Lh1Jk2BscGBliO1jhY=
In-Reply-To: <17cc3f97234b6efc$231970$197378$4ed50460@news.newsdemon.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 11677

On 5/4/24 5:37 AM, trotsky wrote:
> On 5/3/24 9:33 AM, FPP wrote:
>> On 5/2/24 1:42 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <v106rl$3stcm$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/1/24 1:05 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <v0tika$370i3$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>> peaceablyto 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".
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 like every MAGA. A bullshitter and a clown.
>>>>
>>>> He made a learned legal argument that Biden was guilty when he wasn't
>>>> even in office. That's bush league.
>>>
>>> And here Effa continues to employ his typical 'blame the messenger'
>>> dodge rather than address the substance of the matter asserted.
>>>
>>> Notice that 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.
>>>
>>
>> This is the substance of the matter.  Turley is a MAGA liar.
>> Hey, here's a legal axiom... let me know if you've ever heard it, 
>> counselor.
>>
>>
>>> falsus in uno doctrine
>>> The falsus in uno doctrine is a principle that says if a witness lies 
>>> about one important thing, then the jury can assume that everything 
>>> they say is a lie. It means that if the jury thinks a witness is 
>>> intentionally deceitful, they can ignore everything that witness says.
>>
>> Look it up.  Turley is a liar in a lot more than one thing.  Want me 
>> to list a few, or do you prefer to run away before I do it?
>>
>>> Turley incorrectly claimed that DOJ special counsel Jack Smith was 
>>> indicting Trump for misinformation. He stated that Trump is “being 
>>> indicted for spreading lies. That's what the indictment says over and 
>>> over again, and they insist that he knew they were lies.” [Fox News, 
>>> The Story with Martha MacCallum, 8/3/23]
>>
>>> Turley stated Trump is “being charged with lying” and argued the 
>>> indictment raises “free speech concerns.” He stated, “There are 
>>> legitimate free speech concerns raised by these charges. Essentially 
>>> he's being charged with lying and the government is saying you can 
>>> make false statements in an election, but not if you know that 
>>> they're false. But they don't really establish that he knew that they 
>>> were false, even if that theory is correct.” [Fox News, America 
>>> Reports, 8/3/23]
>>
>>> Turley argued that Trump is protected from charges in the January 6 
>>> indictment because of the First Amendment. He claimed, “It does not 
>>> appear that this was motivated by new evidence, and in order to get a 
>>> conviction, he [Smith] will have to use material that, in my view, is 
>>> clearly protected by the First Amendment.” [Fox News, Special Report 
>>> with Bret Baier, 8/1/23]
>>
>>> Turley floated the idea that indicting Trump and penalizing him over 
>>> his actions on January 6 would “criminalize false political speech.” 
>>> He claimed, “It's unlikely he [Trump] will get a trial put in front 
>>> of the Florida trial, but they very well could help him out in moving 
>>> these issues to the appellate court and asking them is this the 
>>> criminalization of disinformation? Are you about to criminalize false 
>>> political speech? Because in the past, the Supreme Court has been 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========