Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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, 22 Mar 2024 07:08:21 -0400
Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn.
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <utjor7$2snlm$1@dont-email.me>
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>
 <atropos-6DE3F1.11010721032024@news.giganews.com>
 <17bede76861e0687$3579$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>
 <atropos-6D853D.13234321032024@news.giganews.com>
Reply-To: fredp1571@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 11:08:23 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6a12f5494fe329ae11de877e3270d04b";
	logging-data="3038902"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19vEAb2VY0WcOz2p/i2DYcW"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bHEuutIZhKxmQD7c5geehRsag+0=
In-Reply-To: <atropos-6D853D.13234321032024@news.giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3951

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.

-- 
"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