Re: The 1st Amendment Apparently Doesn't Exist in New York Either

In article <v12sj9$jcuh$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
 

On 5/2/24 1:42 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <v106rl$3stcm$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 5/1/24 1:05 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <v0tika$370i3$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 4/30/24 2:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 30, 2024 at 6:17:34 AM PDT, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On 4/30/24 5:13 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

     In the U.S., politicians have demanded Internet censorship and have
even engaged in it themselves. For example, the Supreme Court will
soon hear Missouri v. Biden, a case in which the federal government
coerced social media platforms to censor content it disagreed with--
even if the content was true.
     Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington
University and free speech advocate who has written extensively on
the issues of censorship and limitations on speech, has cautioned the
U.S. against adopting European censorship laws that allow governments
to stop people from saying things that governments oppose. Despite
what many think, "hate speech", which is subjective, is protected
both by the Constitution and by Supreme Court precedent.
     He wrote:
     "There have been calls to ban hate speech for years. Even former
journalist and Obama State Department official Richard Stengel has
insisted that while "the 1st Amendment protects 'the thought that we
hate'... it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence
by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a
megaphone, that seems like a design flaw."
     Actually, it was not a design flaw but the very essence of the
Framers' plan for a free society.
     The 1st Amendment does not distinguish between types of speech,
clearly stating: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right
of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government
for a redress of grievances.'"
     He cited Brandenburg v. Ohio, a 1969 case involving "violent speech",
wherein the Supreme Court struck down an Ohio law prohibiting public
speech that was deemed as promoting illegal conduct, specifically
ruling for the right of the Ku Klux Klan to speak out, even though
it is a hateful organization."
     That ruling led to National Socialist Party of America v. Village of
Skokie in 1977, where the Court unanimously ruled that the city
government could not constitutionally deny a permit for the American
Nazi Party to hold a march in the city streets, even in a city
populated heavily by Holocaust survivors.
     Turley also noted that in the 2011 case of RAV v. City of St. Paul,
the Court struck down a ban on any symbol that 'arouses anger, alarm
or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion
or gender, and in Snyder v. Phelps, also in 2011, the Court said
that "the hateful protests of Westboro Baptist Church were
protected".

>

Jonathan Turley? Do better. You're a better lawyer than Jonathan
Turley... and what does that say?

>
More of Effa's standard 'blame the messenger' dodge.
>
Notice he doesn't (and can't) refute the fact that the Supreme Court
cases cited by Turley actually exist and the rulings are what they are,
so he just attacks the person citing them. This is one of the classic
rhetorical and logical fallacies, one Effa has wholeheartedly embraced
because he thinks it allows him to win on Usenet on any given day.

>

Turley is an idiot. And he reads a calendar about as well as YOU read
English.

>
More of Effa's standard 'blame the messenger' dodge.
>
Notice he doesn't (and can't) refute the fact that the Supreme Court
cases cited by Turley actually exist and the rulings are what they are,
so he just attacks the person citing them. This is one of the classic
rhetorical and logical fallacies, one Effa has wholeheartedly embraced
because he thinks it allows him to win on Usenet on any given day.
>

Turley is like every MAGA. A bullshitter and a clown.
>
He made a learned legal argument that Biden was guilty when he wasn't
even in office. That's bush league.

>
And here Effa continues to employ his typical 'blame the messenger'
dodge rather than address the substance of the matter asserted.
>
Notice that he doesn't (and can't) refute the fact that the Supreme
Court cases cited by Turley actually exist and the rulings are what they
are, so he just attacks the person citing them. This is one of the
classic rhetorical and logical fallacies, one Effa has wholeheartedly
embraced because he thinks it allows him to win on Usenet on any given
day.

 

This is the substance of the matter. Turley is a MAGA liar.
Hey, here's a legal axiom... let me know if you've ever heard it,
counselor.

 <snip irrelevancies>
 

Look it up. Turley is a liar in a lot more than one thing. Want me to
list a few, or do you prefer to run away before I do it?
>

Turley incorrectly claimed that DOJ special counsel Jack Smith was

 <snip even more lengthy irrelevancies>
 

So, basically... fuck Turley, and fuck you too. He's a Fox News Suck-ass.