Path: Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 19:40:37 +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$3@dont-email.me> <atropos-0C1EAD.13521530032024@69.muaa.rchm.washdctt.dsl.att.net> <Dh9ON.177704$zF_1.36010@fx18.iad>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 12:48:17 -0700
Message-ID: <atropos-2645B5.12481731032024@69.muaa.rchm.washdctt.dsl.att.net>
Lines: 31
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-VsJM3LohsyvN8kpJfWb8wRJaRow3HvglsBvMb4yr18jAVr/7p3TNln8K5oMrYz1V96v7F7qZx3WyOum!oZpe2bjI7nykH4SPcJzHDHZppPE4Ws6fpmjh/W9pCxEiW4oDrSXbspidmKjaoOB18p5cFsCPTC3a!0749RqNaeZHNTDLfsE4EaiNU
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: 2903

In article <Dh9ON.177704$zF_1.36010@fx18.iad>,
 trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:

> On 3/30/24 3:52 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <uu9d3v$1363u$3@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> On 3/29/24 1:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

> >>>>> 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.
> 
> The right wing asshole Supreme Court you mean?

No, Hutt, you acne-encrusted incel. The liberal Supreme Court that decided the case in 1971. I even put 
the date in the cite a half-dozen times in this thread and that lump of 
human stool between your ears still couldn't figure it out.