Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<atropos-E84A3F.11483311042024@kd014101080069.ppp-bb.dion.ne.jp> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: Ketanji Jackson Worried That the 1st Amendment is Hamstringing Government Censorship Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 10:12:59 -0400 Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn. Lines: 134 Message-ID: <uu6i9c$b577$2@dont-email.me> 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> Reply-To: fredp1571@gmail.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 14:13:00 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="57e7f22618a88286219793465c2ee86f"; logging-data="365799"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+dIAF0M0VoQK1zeGCy1sxV" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:rQduliB36DH4MYgLxXx9A9iqHxU= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <atropos-F3DF7D.10482528032024@news.giganews.com> Bytes: 7140 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. -- "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC Bible 25B.G. https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0 Gracie, age 6. https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0