Path: Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 17:40:35 +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: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 10:48:25 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 122 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-WBgXjKgieHhZYU5VLkguc1b+72as5hVTeTcdkXWiGKCz0b8rKSV0ASZXTBYqh2UwXRBsUHU5sB5Z+do!ox1FYLzRyJPFtR2KSdgItE93DgWrnHUhHilpsg0jqWuM7hpDLGFq4oOIIfH94XLauL7z6Gy+4SK7!XdM= 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: 6524 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)