Path: Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 20:44:31 +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> <Y26dnWI6_a92bGD4nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> <utmrou$3n3jl$3@dont-email.me> <atropos-DA20D8.10523923032024@news.giganews.com> <utua5t$1p4c6$2@dont-email.me> <atropos-DEB821.08591626032024@news.giganews.com> <uu3tmd$3kalu$1@dont-email.me> <atropos-F3DF7D.10482528032024@news.giganews.com> <uu6i9c$b577$2@dont-email.me> <atropos-670537.10490929032024@news.giganews.com> <uu9d3v$1363u$3@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 13:52:15 -0700
Message-ID: <atropos-0C1EAD.13521530032024@69.muaa.rchm.washdctt.dsl.att.net>
Lines: 154
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-gEe49usQBcYE6+9tYsNysDeidz6+TX4kBG1YfVyySXDmcYzye7K5hKMk8LHjCOXfh5ymMl2AyRLolyO!G9gq23440lFaVJ4J3+YBjU4mB+Z02xtAHkJFrVa8Mi/CjlHyAQZvNoh9uJ9Qj7yaogOMmhQIDaAk!jVi2nCY0xBfqo14qtvyz1HW5
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: 8229

In article <uu9d3v$1363u$3@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> 
wrote:

> On 3/29/24 1:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <uu6i9c$b577$2@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> On 3/28/24 1:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <uu3tmd$3kalu$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 3/26/24 11:59 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>> In article <utua5t$1p4c6$2@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 3/23/24 1:52 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <utmrou$3n3jl$3@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 3/22/24 5:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> 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:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. зз 793н 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.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Bullshit.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> (Note: I'm the one who consistently produces cites in this thread to
> >>>>>>> back up what I say. Effa is the one who lies and says I don't have
> >>>>>>> cites
> >>>>>>> and then makes ridiculous claims with no cites to back up what *he*
> >>>>>>> says.)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You are not the NY Times. Bullshit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So now you're seriously arguing that the Court's decision in NY Times
> >>>>> vs. U.S. *only* applies to the NY Times?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jeezus, did you just skip grade school altogether or something?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Jesus, can you read?
> >>>>
> >>>> 18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information
> >>>> (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits,
> >>>> or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or
> >>>> uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United
> >>>> States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of
> >>>> the United States any classified information—
> >>>> (1)
> >>>> concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or
> >>>> cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
> >>>> (2)
> >>>> concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any
> >>>> device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by
> >>>> the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or
> >>>> communication intelligence purposes; or
> >>>> (3)
> >>>> concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United
> >>>> States or any foreign government; or
> >>>> (4)
> >>>> obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the
> >>>> communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been
> >>>> obtained by such processes—
> >>>> Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years,
> >>>> or both.
> >>>>
> >>>> (b)
> >>>> As used in subsection (a) of this section—
> >>>> The term “classified information” means information which, at the time
> >>>> of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security,
> >>>> specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited
> >>>> or restricted dissemination or distribution;
> >>>
> >>> Jesus, can you read?
> >>>
> >>> New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
> >>>
> >>
> >> You're not the NY Times.
> > 
> > Don't have to be. Nowhere in the opinion did the Court limit its
> > decision to only huge legacy media corporations. And in subsequent
> > decisions has recognized the speech of ordinary citizens doing nothing
> > more than posting on the internet as protected by the Free Press Clause.
> > 
> > This has been explained to you for decades. Decades...
> > 
> Nope.  Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it so.

No, it's so because the Supreme Court says it's so.