Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:49:13 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Ketanji Jackson Worried That the 1st Amendment is Hamstringing Government Censorship Content-Language: en-US Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv References: <17bee95657459db9$30487$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com> From: moviePig In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 110 Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail Nntp-Posting-Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:49:15 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 5563 Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17bf31450798f61c$1$1100308$44d50e60@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 5940 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: >>> >>>> On 3/21/2024 5:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>> In article <17bee53b6fc0a7b7$1$1768716$4ad50060@news.newsdemon.com>, >>>>> moviePig wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 3/21/2024 4:23 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>> In article <17bede76861e0687$3579$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>, >>>>>>> moviePig wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 3/21/2024 2:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>>>> <17bed676b63ac4b3$30484$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com>, >>>>>>>>> moviePig wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2024 11:05 AM, FPP wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/24 2:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In article , FPP >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A key difference being that the press is assumed to be a responsible >>>>>>>>>> source of information and not a bullhorn. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is not and never has been a condition of SCOTUS free press >>>>>>>>> jurisprudence. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Right. Just like how the 2nd amendment doesn't exclude WMDs... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Analogy fail. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You're comparing the text of an amendment to 200+ years of Supreme Court >>>>>>> jurisprudence interpreting an amendment. >>>>>> >>>>>> Fail failed. Many amendments have been "interpreted" for 200+ years >>>>>> ...and yet are still being "interpreted". >>>>> >>>>> But there isn't two centuries of robust interpretation *plus* the plain >>>>> text of the 2nd Amendment that supports your comparison. There is >>>>> however two centuries of robust interpretation *plus* the plain text of >>>>> the 1st Amendment in opposition to the idea that the 1st Amendment takes >>>>> a back seat to government censorship so long as the government says it >>>>> really, really, honestly, pinky-swear needs to. >>>> >>>> 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? I don't buy it.