Liste des Groupes | Revenir à ra tv |
In articleYes, anytime one disagrees with a published opinion, one is -- according to that published opinion -- "wrong".
<17c333d2cd5539d8$169757$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 4/4/2024 3:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:In article <17c31e036847f89d$33224$111488$4ed50460@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>On 4/3/2024 7:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:On 4/3/2024 2:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:On Apr 3, 2024 at 8:36:11 AM PDT, "moviePig" <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>On 4/3/2024 5:50 AM, FPP wrote:On 4/2/24 5:52 PM, moviePig wrote:On 4/2/2024 1:16 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:Mar 27, 2024 at 3:58:45 PM PDT, moviePig <never@nothere.com>:3/27/2024 6:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:Yes, and we don't have laws against hate speech because they're>>>>>>>>>>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.https://ibb.co/0FpvG4S>
moviePig is unparseable here. Is he stating that protestors protest
against their friends and not their enemies? I'm so confused.
I'm here to help.
>
In general, people who burn an American flag do so in protest of
their own government's actions and policies, while those who burn a
rainbow flag do so to express their hate of queers.
If you own it, you can burn it.
But not at a gay-pride march under laws against hate speech.
There are no laws against hate speech in the United States. If any
legislature should pass such a law, it would be unconstitutional.
...until some future SCOTUS rules differently.
Well, any law can be repealed, decision overturned, and constitution
amended, but your statement wasn't that of a future wish but as a
(fallacious) recitation of the status quo.
I "recited" nothing. I (deliberately) posed a hypothetical.
You didn't indicate at all that it was a hypothetical. You made the
simple statement, in response to Effa saying that if you own (a rainbow
flag) you can burn it, "but not at a gay-pride march under laws against
hate speech".
>
Where's the hypothetical there? Looks like it's a statement of what you
believe to be the status quo of American law.
I said (and say) that such confrontational flag-burning is what a law
against hate speech prohibits.
unconstitutional.
Hate speech is protected 1st Amendment speech.
I didn't cite a particular instance because I didn't know of any -- thoughWell, of course. Canadia has neither a constitution nor a 1st Amendment,
it now seems I might've found some in Canadian law.
so its government can and does infringe on their freedom to speak with
appalling regularity. Not only can the Canadidian government prohibit
entire categories of speech altogether, it's free to take sides, to
create double standards where some speech and protests are allowed
(e.g., pro-Hamas) and other are brutally repressed (e.g., truckers)
based on whether the government agrees with and approves of the speaker
or not.
Regardless, the point I've always defended is that 'hate speech' is asAnd according to 200+ years of 1st Amendment jurisprudence, you'd be
much of an identifiable phenomenon as, say, pornography, and imo not
necessarily entitled *in principle* to "free speech" protections.
wrong.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.