Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!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 07:08:21 -0400 Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn. Lines: 62 Message-ID: References: <17bed676b63ac4b3$30484$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com> <17bede76861e0687$3579$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com> 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 11:08:23 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6a12f5494fe329ae11de877e3270d04b"; logging-data="3038902"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19vEAb2VY0WcOz2p/i2DYcW" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:bHEuutIZhKxmQD7c5geehRsag+0= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 3951 On 3/21/24 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. > Nope, it was perfectly apt, and nothing you cited changed that. SCALIA. Remember him? Because every time I bring him up to you about how no amendment is sacrosanct (not even the second), you fall into that coma again. -- "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