Re: Inconvenient lefties

On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 10:46:12 -0400, moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:

On 4/5/2024 7:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 5, 2024 at 3:57:07 PM PDT, "moviePig" <never@nothere.com> wrote:
 

On 4/5/2024 4:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

  moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:

  On 4/4/2024 10:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

  In article
  <17c3425456280d71$51966$3384359$c2d58868@news.newsdemon.com>,
  moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>

  On 4/4/2024 9:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

  In article
  <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:

>

  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  Well, any law can be repealed, decision overturned, and constitution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.

>
  Yes, and we don't have laws against hate speech because they're
  unconstitutional.
>
  Hate speech is protected 1st Amendment speech.
>

  I didn't cite a particular instance because I didn't know of any -- though
  it now seems I might've found some in Canadian law.

>
  Well, of course. Canadia has neither a constitution nor a 1st Amendment,
  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 as
  much of an identifiable phenomenon as, say, pornography, and imo not
  necessarily entitled *in principle* to "free speech" protections.

>
  And according to 200+ years of 1st Amendment jurisprudence, you'd be
  wrong.

>
  Yes, anytime one disagrees with a published opinion, one is -- according
  to that published opinion -- "wrong".

>
  Yes, when that opinion defines the law of the nation, making directly
  contradictory claims in Usenet posts does make you wrong.

>
  What *opinion* -- of anything anywhere -- can't be contradicted?  Fyi,
  *that* would be a violation of 'free speech'...

 
  No one's muzzling or prohibiting you from making contradictory statements
  regarding the SCOTUS ruling. However, your right to free speech doesn't
  immunize you from being wrong or bar others from pointing out your
  wrongness.

>
...where "wrongness" means "of differing opinion".

 
You can have an opinion that SCOTUS decided wrongly and wish it had made a
different ruling but you can't have an opinion that the law is other than it
is.

>
The 'law' is what SCOTUS has opinions about. 

More correctly stated: the law becomes what the SC decides it is.

I can have *my* opinion
about either or both.  Therein, the only "wrong" would be a misquoting.

You can have an opinion about the law but you would be wrong on the
facts of the law if you claim it says other than what the court
decided.