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: <AbGcneZpLeuJ12f4nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com> <utevar$1iacj$1@dont-email.me> <atropos-5890E9.11501820032024@g9u1993c-hb.houston.hpicorp.net> <uthibv$29328$7@dont-email.me> <17bed676b63ac4b3$30484$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com> <atropos-6DE3F1.11010721032024@news.giganews.com> <17bede76861e0687$3579$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com> <atropos-6D853D.13234321032024@news.giganews.com>
From: moviePig <never@nothere.com>
In-Reply-To: <atropos-6D853D.13234321032024@news.giganews.com>
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 <never@nothere.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/21/2024 2:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <17bed676b63ac4b3$30484$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>>    moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/21/2024 11:05 AM, FPP wrote:
>>>>> On 3/20/24 2:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> In article <utevar$1iacj$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>>>>> 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".