Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:38:00 -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: <17bed676b63ac4b3$30484$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com> <17bede76861e0687$3579$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com> From: moviePig In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 53 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: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 21:38:03 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 2916 Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17bee55a010739a3$2$1768716$4ad50060@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 3293 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".