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: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 07:22:34 -0400 Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn. Lines: 130 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: fredp1571@gmail.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 11:22:34 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6a12f5494fe329ae11de877e3270d04b"; logging-data="3045031"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ib8K/jGrbC+chqJRQHvN0" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:2WzMcVPJCxYDaBefJHNtQgsfEwE= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 7223 On 3/21/24 1:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > In article , FPP > wrote: > >> On 3/20/24 2:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>> In article , FPP >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 3/19/24 10:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>> >>>>> WTF? What country do you think this is, Ketanji? >>>>> >>>>> The Bill of Rights wasn't written to restrain WE THE PEOPLE. >>>>> >>>>> It was written to restrain THE GOVERNMENT. >>>>> >>>>> Getting in the way of government censorship efforts is precisely what the >>>>> 1st Amendment was intended to do. It's a feature, not a bug. If the >>>>> government's attempts at censorship are hitting a brick wall because of >>>>> the >>>>> 1st Amendment, that's a sign everything's working as intended. >>>>> >>>>> It's become stunningly apparent why Biden diversity-hired your Marxist >>>>> ass. >>>>> >>>>> ------------------- >>>>> https://gazette.com/news/wex/ketanji-brown-jackson-concerned-first-amendme >>>>> nt >>>>> -is-hamstringing-government-from-censorship/article_5a732827-ef9a-56fd-a10 >>>>> b- >>>>> aee7be8cb179.amp.html >>>>> >>>>> Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised concerns that the 1st >>>>> Amendment may stand in the way of government censorship in unique times. > >>>>> "You seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the >>>>> government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful >>>>> information," Jackson said. "So, can you help me? Because I'm really >>>>> worried about that because you've got the 1st Amendment operating in an >>>>> environment of threatening circumstances, from the government's >>>>> perspective, and you're saying that the government can't interact with >>>>> the source of those problems." >>>>> >>>>> Aguiñaga said his view was that the government should intervene in >>>>> certain situations, but it has to do so by following the 1st Amendment. >>>>> >>>>> "Our position is not that the government can't interact with the >>>>> platforms there. They can and they should in certain circumstances >>>>> like that, that present such dangerous issues for society and >>>>> especially young people," Aguiñaga said in response. "But the way >>>>> they do that has to be in compliance with the 1st Amendment and I >>>>> think that means they can give them all the true information that >>>>> the platform needs and ask to amplify that." >>>>> >>>>> Jackson said a "once-in-a-lifetime pandemic" or other emergencies would >>>>> provide grounds for the government to censor social media posts that are >>>>> misinformative. > >>>> The government has the power and, indeed the right to make sure that >>>> harmful information doesn't get to the public. >>> >>> (1) The government has no rights. Only citizens have rights. Government >>> only has powers granted to it by the citizens. >>> >>> (2) Whatever power the the government may have with regard to 'harmful >>> information' is limited by the 1st Amendment's prohibition on government >>> censorship. >>> >>> The 1st Amendment doesn't say, "...shall make no law abridging the >>> freedom of speech, except if some government bureaucrat decides what >>> you're saying is harmful". >>> >>> (3) This restriction on government power doesn't even go away when >>> there's an emergency, as the Supreme Court has ruled: >>> >>> "Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may >>> disregard the provisions of the Constitution in case of emergency." Ex >>> parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866) >>> >>>>> "I'm interested in your view that the context does't change the 1st >>>>> Amendment principles," she said. "I understood our 1st Amendment >>>>> jurisprudence to require heightened scrutiny of government restrictions >>>>> of speech, but not necessarily a total prohibition when you're talking >>>>> about a compelling interest of the government to ensure, for example, >>>>> that the public has accurate information in the context of a once-in- >>>>> a-lifetime pandemic." >>>> >>>> Try telling kids to eat Tide Pods because they're good for them and see >>>> where it gets you. >>>> >>>> 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. > > 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. > > You're 0 for 2 on this one, Shit-Shoes. Wanna go for the hat trick? > Read the Espionage act fuckwad? Oh, what AM I saying... I forgot about your reading skilz. I apologize. The disabled get a pass. -- "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