Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!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: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 07:05:33 -0400 Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn. Lines: 72 Message-ID: References: <17bf31450798f61c$1$1100308$44d50e60@news.newsdemon.com> Reply-To: fredp1571@gmail.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 12:05:33 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="face2f04f79da53c25a7c96d8c9608aa"; logging-data="1872262"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/p7YYCFnSpRN7cKniS6qDx" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:OFolFBc3VnsUNbkCMfwVZTFyZgQ= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 4430 On 3/23/24 1:52 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > In article , FPP > wrote: > >> On 3/22/24 5:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>> 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: > >>>>>>>> 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. зз 793н 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. > >> Bullshit. > > New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) > > (Note: I'm the one who consistently produces cites in this thread to > back up what I say. Effa is the one who lies and says I don't have cites > and then makes ridiculous claims with no cites to back up what *he* > says.) > You are not the NY Times. Bullshit. -- "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