Path: Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:02:35 +0000 From: BTR1701 Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: Ketanji Jackson Worried That the 1st Amendment is Hamstringing Government Censorship References: <17bf31450798f61c$1$1100308$44d50e60@news.newsdemon.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS Message-ID: Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:02:35 +0000 Lines: 113 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-tjGoU1jWUGRY+wsN8GDYkEUY79PgheWuw0eec2Q7dsADMiyWlzH2F41ownO0ibZeXn9VIS2jSb1MHcn!H6E8Q/g4Mnb9TUmtc6gPEcS9Tqd6/+KD+m1qUFgz2lFjzHNxWqeMDJMiZycaWZT/5Phk5UEfVejZ X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 6401 X-Original-Lines: 110 On Mar 22, 2024 at 1:49:13 PM PDT, "moviePig" wrote: > On 3/22/2024 4:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >> On Mar 22, 2024 at 4:17:05 AM PDT, "FPP" wrote: >> >>> On 3/21/24 7:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>> In article >>>> <17bee95657459db9$30487$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com>, >>>> moviePig wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 3/21/2024 5:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>> In article <17bee53b6fc0a7b7$1$1768716$4ad50060@news.newsdemon.com>, >>>>>> moviePig wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 3/21/2024 4:23 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>> In article <17bede76861e0687$3579$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>, >>>>>>>> moviePig wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2024 2:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>>>>> <17bed676b63ac4b3$30484$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com>, >>>>>>>>>> moviePig wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2024 11:05 AM, FPP wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/24 2:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article , FPP >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or try publishing National Defense secrets... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, Effa, we already resolved that one and, as usual, your point of >>>>>>>>>>>>> view loses: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> RULING: The New York Times' publishing of the national security >>>>>>>>>>>>> information found in the Pentagon Papers is protected speech under >>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1st Amendment, even during time of war. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again reinforcing that there is no 'emergency exception' to the >>>>>>>>>>>>> requirements and restrictions the Constitution places on the >>>>>>>>>>>>> government. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (This is one of those landmark cases that you should have learned >>>>>>>>>>>>> about in grade school, Effa. Certainly something a self-proclaimed >>>>>>>>>>>>> amateur historian should-- but apparently doesn't-- know.) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And the press is a protected institution. You're not the press. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A key difference being that the press is assumed to be a responsible >>>>>>>>>>> source of information and not a bullhorn. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That is not and never has been a condition of SCOTUS free press >>>>>>>>>> jurisprudence. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Right. Just like how the 2nd amendment doesn't exclude WMDs... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Analogy fail. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You're comparing the text of an amendment to 200+ years of Supreme Court >>>>>>>> jurisprudence interpreting an amendment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fail failed. Many amendments have been "interpreted" for 200+ years >>>>>>> ...and yet are still being "interpreted". >>>>>> >>>>>> But there isn't two centuries of robust interpretation *plus* the plain >>>>>> text of the 2nd Amendment that supports your comparison. There is >>>>>> however two centuries of robust interpretation *plus* the plain text of >>>>>> the 1st Amendment in opposition to the idea that the 1st Amendment takes >>>>>> a back seat to government censorship so long as the government says it >>>>>> really, really, honestly, pinky-swear needs to. >>>>> >>>>> Seems you're now arguing for freedom of the press, as if anyone in this >>>>> dialogue has ever disputed it. >>>> >>>> Effa disputed it: "Or try publishing National Defense secrets..." >>>> >>>>> Not many Usenet points for that... >>>> >>>> Points restored. >>> >>> >>> Thanny isn't a journalist. >> >> Don't need to be. I'm still protected under the 1st Amendment. Nowhere does >> the 1st Amendment limit press protection to only people who work for big >> legacy corporations. Indeed, the Supreme Court has ruled that citizen >> media-- >> bloggers, YouTubers, individual citizens commenting on websites-- all fall >> under the 1st Amendment's press protections. >> >>> The Espionage Act >>> National defense information in general is protected by the Espionage >>> Act,21 18 U.S.C. §§ 793– 798 >> >> New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) >> >> Any elements of the Act that conflict with the Supreme Court's decision in >> NY >> Times v U.S. are superseded by it. >> >> That's how this shit works. You know, the Supreme Court decides whether >> statutes or parts of statutes are constitutional or not. This is something >> grade schoolers know but our resident amateur historian apparently needs >> explained to him. > > So, you maintain that, if the Times were to obtain (somehow) and publish > a top-secret map of all U.S. nuclear silos -- say, in the name of > "neighborhood awareness" -- there'd be no reprisal? There'd be plenty of reprisal in court of public opinion, but any official government sanction would be illegal.