| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<sR2dnWhJhaAPdGD4nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:26:58 +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> <17bede76861e0687$3579$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com> <atropos-6D853D.13234321032024@news.giganews.com> <utjor7$2snlm$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS Message-ID: <sR2dnWhJhaAPdGD4nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:26:58 +0000 Lines: 64 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-g7ISwDjLZBOwwYtL6UGDDm7XrvsXKCkpucsTRRbCsRyhrsEqgjctBihotD57Ip2ew8vP0puyBYnl5px!A9t6yqsMTTH9HWQ3mmDFrfGmXOyn8zAjsvzstKteMDb/cCkFGzlq5/Md4ztJPzJio1QjTcjwjrsx 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: 3946 X-Original-Lines: 59 On Mar 22, 2024 at 4:08:21 AM PDT, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/21/24 4:23 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >> In article <17bede76861e0687$3579$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>, >> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote: >> >>> On 3/21/2024 2:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> Right. Just like how the 2nd amendment doesn't exclude WMDs... >> >> Analogy fail. >> >> You're comparing the text of an amendment to 200+ years of Supreme Court >> jurisprudence interpreting an amendment. >> > Nope, it was perfectly apt, and nothing you cited changed that. > SCALIA. Remember him? > > Because every time I bring him up to you about how no amendment is > sacrosanct (not even the second), you fall into that coma again. No, I don't. Every time you bring that up, I ask you whether you think tha it'd be okay for the government to make exceptions to Amendment XIX an prohibit women from voting since "no amendment is sacrosanct", after all. O since "no amendment is sacrosanct", it'd be okay for the government t prohibit black people from voting (Amendment XV) and allow people to be owne as slaves (Amendment XIII). And that's when *you* go into a coma.