Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 15:13:01 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Ketanji Jackson Worried That the 1st Amendment is Hamstringing Government Censorship
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> <atropos-01BBB1.10295821032024@news.giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: trotsky <gmsingh@email.com>
In-Reply-To: <atropos-01BBB1.10295821032024@news.giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 123
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: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:13:00 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 6532
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17bf2f4a66cce147$2$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 6909

On 3/21/24 12:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <uthibv$29328$7@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/20/24 2:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <utevar$1iacj$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/19/24 10:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>
>>>>> WTF? What country do you think this is, Ketanji?
>>>>>
>>>>> The Bill of Rights wasn't written to restrain WE THE PEOPLE.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was written to restrain THE GOVERNMENT.
>>>>>
>>>>> Getting in the way of government censorship efforts is precisely what the
>>>>> 1st Amendment was intended to do. It's a feature, not a bug. If the
>>>>> government's attempts at censorship are hitting a brick wall because of
>>>>> the
>>>>> 1st Amendment, that's a sign everything's working as intended.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's become stunningly apparent why Biden diversity-hired your Marxist
>>>>> ass.
>>>>>
>>>>> -------------------
>>>>> https://gazette.com/news/wex/ketanji-brown-jackson-concerned-first-amendme
>>>>> nt
>>>>> -is-hamstringing-government-from-censorship/article_5a732827-ef9a-56fd-a10
>>>>> b-
>>>>> aee7be8cb179.amp.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised concerns that the 1st
>>>>> Amendment may stand in the way of government censorship in unique times.
> 
>>>>> "You seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the
>>>>> government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful
>>>>> information," Jackson said. "So, can you help me? Because I'm really
>>>>> worried about that because you've got the 1st Amendment operating in an
>>>>> environment of threatening circumstances, from the government's
>>>>> perspective, and you're saying that the government can't interact with
>>>>> the source of those problems."
>>>>>
>>>>> Aguiñaga said his view was that the government should intervene in
>>>>> certain situations, but it has to do so by following the 1st Amendment.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Our position is not that the government can't interact with the
>>>>> platforms there. They can and they should in certain circumstances
>>>>> like that, that present such dangerous issues for society and
>>>>> especially young people," Aguiñaga said in response. "But the way
>>>>> they do that has to be in compliance with the 1st Amendment and I
>>>>> think that means they can give them all the true information that
>>>>> the platform needs and ask to amplify that."
>>>>>
>>>>> Jackson said a "once-in-a-lifetime pandemic" or other emergencies would
>>>>> provide grounds for the government to censor social media posts that are
>>>>> misinformative.
> 
>>>> The government has the power and, indeed the right to make sure that
>>>> harmful information doesn't get to the public.
>>>
>>> (1) The government has no rights. Only citizens have rights. Government
>>> only has powers granted to it by the citizens.
>>>
>>> (2) Whatever power the the government may have with regard to 'harmful
>>> information' is limited by the 1st Amendment's prohibition on government
>>> censorship.
>>>
>>> The 1st Amendment doesn't say, "...shall make no law abridging the
>>> freedom of speech, except if some government bureaucrat decides what
>>> you're saying is harmful".
>>>
>>> (3) This restriction on government power doesn't even go away when
>>> there's an emergency, as the Supreme Court has ruled:
>>>
>>> "Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may
>>> disregard the provisions of the Constitution in case of emergency."  Ex
>>> parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)
>>>
>>>>> "I'm interested in your view that the context does't change the 1st
>>>>> Amendment principles," she said. "I understood our 1st Amendment
>>>>> jurisprudence to require heightened scrutiny of government restrictions
>>>>> of speech, but not necessarily a total prohibition when you're talking
>>>>> about a compelling interest of the government to ensure, for example,
>>>>> that the public has accurate information in the context of a once-in-
>>>>> a-lifetime pandemic."
>>>>
>>>> Try telling kids to eat Tide Pods because they're good for them and see
>>>> where it gets you.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> You're 0 for 2 on this one, Shit-Shoes. Wanna go for the hat trick?


So you're saying you represent a publication?  Because when FPP says you 
aren't the press, and you said but but but citizen media! you failed to 
indicate which "citizen media" you're with.  Ostensibly you just said 
FPP was spot on then.  P.S. You even more mind numbingly stupid than 
usual here.