Sujet : Re: Inconvenient lefties
De : gmsingh (at) *nospam* email.com (trotsky)
Groupes : rec.arts.tvDate : 06. Apr 2024, 11:40:53
Autres entêtes
Organisation : NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
Message-ID : <17c3a7807074107b$3392$1100308$44d50e60@news.newsdemon.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 4/5/24 5:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 30, 2024 at 9:05:52 AM PDT, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/29/24 2:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <uu6j1t$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:
>
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.)
>
Your side is banning words, and banning books, and banning curriculum
there, Sparky.
Who's banning words and policing the language?
https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1776348840171347968/vid/avc1/482x270/7c-0yRyX-G2NI4o-.mp4?tag=14
CT State Senator Martha Marx (D) says only using the term "pregnant mother" is
going down a "slippery slope" because then we also have to include "pregnant
father".
She proposes the government only use the term "pregnant person" because it's
most inclusive and covers "every person that will show up with a baby in their
womb".
A state senator said that? And you find this especially significant why, exactly? Sounds like you need more civics lessons.
Inconvenient lefties
Re: Inconvenient lefties