Path: Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:02:35 +0000
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Ketanji Jackson Worried That the 1st Amendment is Hamstringing Government Censorship
References: <AbGcneZpLeuJ12f4nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com> <utjpbj$2srhl$1@dont-email.me> <Crmcnc_SKN28dWD4nZ2dnZfqn_YAAAAA@giganews.com> <17bf31450798f61c$1$1100308$44d50e60@news.newsdemon.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Message-ID: <Y26dnWI6_a92bGD4nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:02:35 +0000
Lines: 113
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-tjGoU1jWUGRY+wsN8GDYkEUY79PgheWuw0eec2Q7dsADMiyWlzH2F41ownO0ibZeXn9VIS2jSb1MHcn!H6E8Q/g4Mnb9TUmtc6gPEcS9Tqd6/+KD+m1qUFgz2lFjzHNxWqeMDJMiZycaWZT/5Phk5UEfVejZ
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 6401
X-Original-Lines: 110

On Mar 22, 2024 at 1:49:13 PM PDT, "moviePig" <never@nothere.com> wrote:

> 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?

There'd be plenty of reprisal in court of public opinion, but any official
government sanction would be illegal.