Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:49:13 -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> <17bee95657459db9$30487$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com> <atropos-E26190.16174621032024@news.giganews.com> <utjpbj$2srhl$1@dont-email.me> <Crmcnc_SKN28dWD4nZ2dnZfqn_YAAAAA@giganews.com>
From: moviePig <never@nothere.com>
In-Reply-To: <Crmcnc_SKN28dWD4nZ2dnZfqn_YAAAAA@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 110
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 20:49:15 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 5563
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17bf31450798f61c$1$1100308$44d50e60@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 5940

On 3/22/2024 4:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Mar 22, 2024 at 4:17:05 AM PDT, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/21/24 7:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>   In article
>>>   <17bee95657459db9$30487$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>>     moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>   
>>>>   On 3/21/2024 5:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>   In article <17bee53b6fc0a7b7$1$1768716$4ad50060@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>>>>      moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>   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".
>>>>>
>>>>>   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?

I don't buy it.