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: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 11:16:46 -0400 Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn. Lines: 125 Message-ID: References: <17bf31450798f61c$1$1100308$44d50e60@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: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 15:16:46 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="54e6098056b1e9db8213ada7a5b01c77"; logging-data="3903093"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Q3heKSz5rs44cU/oqexRe" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:mtk2I6Qlbz1Ob1QIx1AiuxBq1Ws= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 7031 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: >>>>> >>>>>> 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? > > There'd be plenty of reprisal in court of public opinion, but any official > government sanction would be illegal. > > Bullshit. -- "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