Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 12:34:40 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Ketanji Jackson Worried That the 1st Amendment is Hamstringing Government Censorship Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv References: <17bede76861e0687$3579$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com> <17bf6e37e6780b72$41800$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com> <17bf7cfbe0e07a61$81$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com> <968927790.732971486.032004.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com> Content-Language: en-US From: moviePig In-Reply-To: <968927790.732971486.032004.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 62 Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail Nntp-Posting-Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 16:34:44 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 3667 Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17bfc08a77c182df$37521$3326957$c6d58c68@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 4063 On 3/24/2024 7:17 AM, anim8rfsk wrote: > moviePig wrote: >> On 3/23/2024 1:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>> In article <17bf6e37e6780b72$41800$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com>, >>> moviePig wrote: >>> >>>> On 3/23/2024 3:16 AM, The Horny Goat wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:26:58 +0000, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 22, 2024 at 4:08:21 AM PDT, "FPP" wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> No, I don't. Every time you bring that up, I ask you whether you think >>>>>> that it'd be okay for the government to make exceptions to Amendment >>>>>> XIX and prohibit women from voting since "no amendment is sacrosanct", >>>>>> after all. Or since "no amendment is sacrosanct", it'd be okay for the >>>>>> government to prohibit black people from voting (Amendment XV) and >>>>>> allow people to be owned as slaves (Amendment XIII). >>>>>> >>>>>> And that's when *you* go into a coma. >>>>>> >>>>> In other words the "reductio ad absurdem" argument where one defeats >>>>> an argument by showing where the logical extension from it leads to an >>>>> absurdity. >>>> >>>> "SOME amendments are sacrosanct", a theologism, is what's absurd here. >>> >>> So explain how , for example, Amendment XIII might be acceptably >>> regulated beyond it's plain text. >> >> Well, for example, the original... >> >> "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment >> for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist >> within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. >> Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by >> appropriate legislation." >> >> ...could be amended to... >> >> "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment >> for *CAPITAL* crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, >> shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their >> jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this >> article by appropriate legislation." >> >> ...or, if you're longing for a diversionary straw-man, to... >> >> "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment >> for *NEGRO ANCESTRY* whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, >> shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their >> jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this >> article by appropriate legislation." >> >> >> > > Did you have a stroke? Yes, though more of the pen than of inspiration.