Liste des Groupes | Revenir à ra tv |
In article <uv0vc7$3hsmc$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>Nobody has pretended we have such laws. In fact, the genesis of this snipe hunt was my riposte to FPP's claim that there *are* no such laws.
wrote:
On 4/6/24 11:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:In article <17c3e0882b0394ca$5560$3037545$10d55a65@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>On 4/6/2024 2:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:>In article <17c3b829d977a4bb$361$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com>,>
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:>>>>What *opinion* -- of anything anywhere -- can't be contradicted?No one's muzzling or prohibiting you from making contradictory
Fyi, *that* would be a violation of 'free speech'...
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. I can have *my* opinion
about either or both. Therein, the only "wrong" would be a misquoting.
No, the law is what it is and it's not what you claim. You can have your
own opinions but you can't have your own facts.
No? The law *isn't* text that SCOTUS has opinions about? ...as I may?
No, SCOTUS opinions become the law.Corrupt and illegitimate courts make corrupt and illegitimate laws.The court that decided the Skokie case (which is what we're talking
about here) was full of leftists. Weird that you'd be calling them
corrupt and/or that their decisions are illegitimate.
I guess that's all you have left in your zeal to pretend we have laws
against 'hate speech' in America.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.