Re: Inconvenient lefties

On 4/1/24 2:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <uuef1d$2h9u5$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
 

On 3/31/24 3:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <uubnns$1q8ej$5@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 3/30/24 4:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <uu9dbg$1363u$6@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 3/29/24 2:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <uu6j1t$b577$12@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 3/28/24 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.
>

So change it to incitement to commit a crime by speech, then.

>
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.)
>

Scalia told us that amendments have limits and are subject to regulation
by the courts.

>
Yes. And in the case of hate speech, the Court has spoken: National
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.
>

National Security secrets aren't a march.

>
We're not talking about national security secrets here, you
smooth-brained dipshit.
>
We're talking about burning gay pride flags, moviePig's hypothetical
fire on a black family's lawn, and hate speech.
>
The Skokie decision was about speech, not the press or national security
secrets. If you're going to interject your ignorant bullshit, at least
try and make it relevant to what's being discussed.
>

You were making that exact case in another thread.

 But not here, dipshit. We're talking about something else *here*.

Yes, are you now claiming Usenet has no thread drift?  Because that would be exceptionally stupid even by the low bar you've set.