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, 30 Mar 2024 12:03:11 -0400 Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn. Lines: 158 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: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 16:03:12 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1fe43f605f9dc30c52d895c842fa8a60"; logging-data="1153150"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19YWaC4oAZgcMSAnrhRjSg+" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:miIMu1c8hPY/wT51yP8mefJ+bnY= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 8207 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. You can't knowingly publish classified docs if they can damage the national security. I mean, ask Trump. -- "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