Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: FPP Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: Ketanji Jackson Worried That the 1st Amendment is Hamstringing Government Censorship Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 11:17:29 -0400 Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn. Lines: 76 Message-ID: References: <17bede76861e0687$3579$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com> Reply-To: fredp1571@gmail.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 15:17:29 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="54e6098056b1e9db8213ada7a5b01c77"; logging-data="3903093"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18kzKkiu8ee0GGR51WvXYCc" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:0//fiPj2HYvcMobH3wdvh14LXyI= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 4542 On 3/22/24 4:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > On Mar 22, 2024 at 4:08:21 AM PDT, "FPP" wrote: > >> On 3/21/24 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. >>> >> Nope, it was perfectly apt, and nothing you cited changed that. >> SCALIA. Remember him? >> >> Because every time I bring him up to you about how no amendment is >> sacrosanct (not even the second), you fall into that coma again. > > 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. > > No amendment is above being regulated. Period. -- "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC Bible 25B.G. https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0 Gracie, age 6. https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0