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: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 09:33:07 -0400 Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn. Lines: 166 Message-ID: References: <17bf31450798f61c$1$1100308$44d50e60@news.newsdemon.com> Reply-To: fredp1571@gmail.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 13:33:08 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="48f46fa3d9b81fa8573e8cc4350f68f3"; logging-data="1913133"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/zy0Gj2UCZS3xOEhGIhtBJ" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:+jR/8lRJfzYsjqad58Il169eJWs= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 8860 On 3/30/24 4:52 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > In article , FPP > wrote: > >> On 3/29/24 1:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>> In article , FPP >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 3/28/24 1:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>> 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) >>>>> >>>> >>>> You're not the NY Times. >>> >>> Don't have to be. Nowhere in the opinion did the Court limit its >>> decision to only huge legacy media corporations. And in subsequent >>> decisions has recognized the speech of ordinary citizens doing nothing >>> more than posting on the internet as protected by the Free Press Clause. >>> >>> This has been explained to you for decades. Decades... >>> >> Nope. Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it so. > > No, it's so because the Supreme Court says it's so. > So Trump is off the hook in Florida? Have you told him yet? -- "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC Bible 25B.G. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========