Path: Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:45:04 +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, 23 Mar 2024 10:52:39 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 60 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-n8PH8C2I8IBTW7oFO0bX0mXLspqu3Lo59isY3ucCX4jNN1l+w01wFtpMcqSafa0a+Yvwfe+4pwWcbWV!oSGUZvjV/4f72Zg1A8jqaIEexLH1AyIEyh/IM4SUsLlkMwuuoonDTLc5+jmRuwO5u1E6ON8Wdrwu!Ey0= 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: 3787 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. §§ 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 in NY Times v U.S. are superseded by it.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. > 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.)