Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 15:53:52 -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> <17bede76861e0687$3579$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com> <atropos-6D853D.13234321032024@news.giganews.com> <utjor7$2snlm$1@dont-email.me> <sR2dnWhJhaAPdGD4nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <dc0tvil26o548mid7gub6olk07da5sprvh@4ax.com> <17bf6e37e6780b72$41800$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com> <atropos-970DBC.10582723032024@news.giganews.com>
From: moviePig <never@nothere.com>
In-Reply-To: <atropos-970DBC.10582723032024@news.giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 52
Path: ...!news.misty.com!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: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 19:53:55 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 3253
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17bf7cd47918856a$1902$3384359$c2d58868@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 3648

On 3/23/2024 1:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <17bf6e37e6780b72$41800$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com>,
>   moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/23/2024 3:16 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:26:58 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mar 22, 2024 at 4:08:21 AM PDT, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No, I don't. Every time you bring that up, I ask you whether you think
>>>> that it'd be okay for the government to make exceptions to Amendment
>>>> XIX and prohibit women from voting since "no amendment is sacrosanct",
>>>> after all. Or since "no amendment is sacrosanct", it'd be okay for the
>>>> government to prohibit black people from voting (Amendment XV) and
>>>> allow people to be owned as slaves (Amendment XIII).
>>>>
>>>> And that's when *you* go into a coma.
>>>>
>>> In other words the "reductio ad absurdem" argument where one defeats
>>> an argument by showing where the logical extension from it leads to an
>>> absurdity.
>>
>> "SOME amendments are sacrosanct", a theologism, is what's absurd here.
> 
> So explain how , for example, Amendment XIII might be acceptably
> regulated beyond it's plain text.

Well, for example, the original...

    "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment 
for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist 
within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. 
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by 
appropriate legislation."

....could be amended to...

    "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment 
for *CAPITAL* crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, 
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their 
jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this 
article by appropriate legislation."

....or, if you're longing for a diversionary straw-man, to...

    "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment 
for *NEGRO ANCESTRY* whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, 
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their 
jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this 
article by appropriate legislation."