Path: Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 20:44:31 +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> User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 13:52:15 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 154 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-gEe49usQBcYE6+9tYsNysDeidz6+TX4kBG1YfVyySXDmcYzye7K5hKMk8LHjCOXfh5ymMl2AyRLolyO!G9gq23440lFaVJ4J3+YBjU4mB+Z02xtAHkJFrVa8Mi/CjlHyAQZvNoh9uJ9Qj7yaogOMmhQIDaAk!jVi2nCY0xBfqo14qtvyz1HW5 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: 8229 In article , FPP wrote: > On 3/29/24 1:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > > In article , FPP > > wrote: > > > >> On 3/28/24 1:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > >>> In article , FPP > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 3/26/24 11:59 AM, BTR1701 wrote: > >>>>> In article , FPP > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> 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. > >>>>> > >>>>> So now you're seriously arguing that the Court's decision in NY Times > >>>>> vs. U.S. *only* applies to the NY Times? > >>>>> > >>>>> Jeezus, did you just skip grade school altogether or something? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Jesus, can you read? > >>>> > >>>> 18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information > >>>> (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, > >>>> or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or > >>>> uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United > >>>> States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of > >>>> the United States any classified information— > >>>> (1) > >>>> concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or > >>>> cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or > >>>> (2) > >>>> concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any > >>>> device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by > >>>> the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or > >>>> communication intelligence purposes; or > >>>> (3) > >>>> concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United > >>>> States or any foreign government; or > >>>> (4) > >>>> obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the > >>>> communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been > >>>> obtained by such processes— > >>>> Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, > >>>> or both. > >>>> > >>>> (b) > >>>> As used in subsection (a) of this section— > >>>> The term “classified information” means information which, at the time > >>>> of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, > >>>> specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited > >>>> or restricted dissemination or distribution; > >>> > >>> Jesus, can you read? > >>> > >>> New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) > >>> > >> > >> You're not the NY Times. > > > > Don't have to be. Nowhere in the opinion did the Court limit its > > decision to only huge legacy media corporations. And in subsequent > > decisions has recognized the speech of ordinary citizens doing nothing > > more than posting on the internet as protected by the Free Press Clause. > > > > This has been explained to you for decades. Decades... > > > Nope. Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it so. No, it's so because the Supreme Court says it's so.