Re: Inconvenient lefties

On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 18:34:50 -0400, moviePig <never@nothere.com>
wrote:

On 3/28/2024 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.

>
I'd have thought the two crimes to be materially identical, with the
important difference being that one clearly contains "hate speech".
>

The fun thing about "hate speech" is that it relies on interpretation.
It varies from person to person.