Path: Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:53:25 +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> <utevar$1iacj$1@dont-email.me> <atropos-5890E9.11501820032024@g9u1993c-hb.houston.hpicorp.net> <uthibv$29328$7@dont-email.me> <17bed676b63ac4b3$30484$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 11:01:07 -0700
Message-ID: <atropos-6DE3F1.11010721032024@news.giganews.com>
Lines: 34
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-kPFlhIfQXQiCvkUDGGdj4ogBKE5qG6I8EQ8S6Fd2qHOke4UD3TiEKfJJ80XC7YE0aRr6x93G7InLd5m!nLIsIjt22md4hG3xF0jsalIckL7xaZM91sa8EdvFL9pdDU4ijZVLJkEXHScyTy6mazTRP2SEFfPo!m/I=
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: 2554

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.