Liste des Groupes | Revenir à ra tv |
In article <uu9dbg$1363u$6@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>"Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that enhanced penalties for hate crimes do not violate criminal defendants' First Amendment rights.[1] It was a landmark precedent pertaining to First Amendment free speech arguments for hate crime legislation."
wrote:
On 3/29/24 2:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:Yes. And in the case of hate speech, the Court has spoken: NationalIn article <uu6j1t$b577$12@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>Scalia told us that amendments have limits and are subject to regulation
wrote:
>On 3/28/24 6:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:>moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:So change it to incitement to commit a crime by speech, then.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 flagWhy 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.
>
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.)
>
by the courts.
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.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.