Path: Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 17:40:35 +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> <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>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 10:48:25 -0700
Message-ID: <atropos-F3DF7D.10482528032024@news.giganews.com>
Lines: 122
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-WBgXjKgieHhZYU5VLkguc1b+72as5hVTeTcdkXWiGKCz0b8rKSV0ASZXTBYqh2UwXRBsUHU5sB5Z+do!ox1FYLzRyJPFtR2KSdgItE93DgWrnHUhHilpsg0jqWuM7hpDLGFq4oOIIfH94XLauL7z6Gy+4SK7!XdM=
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: 6524

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)