Path: ...!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 07:17:05 -0400
Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn.
Lines: 115
Message-ID: <utjpbj$2srhl$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>
 <17bee53b6fc0a7b7$1$1768716$4ad50060@news.newsdemon.com>
 <atropos-A098DC.14501121032024@news.giganews.com>
 <17bee95657459db9$30487$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com>
 <atropos-E26190.16174621032024@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 11:17:07 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6a12f5494fe329ae11de877e3270d04b";
	logging-data="3042869"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19WJq0Nrq/S+upkqrWwik1Q"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6Y4FZYLcS9dQU6GCwZ/Y0LQtbSc=
In-Reply-To: <atropos-E26190.16174621032024@news.giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6962

On 3/21/24 7:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article
> <17bee95657459db9$30487$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com>,
>   moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/21/2024 5:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <17bee53b6fc0a7b7$1$1768716$4ad50060@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>>    moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/21/2024 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.
>>>>
>>>> Fail failed.  Many amendments have been "interpreted" for 200+ years
>>>> ...and yet are still being "interpreted".
>>>
>>> But there isn't two centuries of robust interpretation *plus* the plain
>>> text of the 2nd Amendment that supports your comparison. There is
>>> however two centuries of robust interpretation *plus* the plain text of
>>> the 1st Amendment in opposition to the idea that the 1st Amendment takes
>>> a back seat to government censorship so long as the government says it
>>> really, really, honestly, pinky-swear needs to.
>>
>> 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.  But he is full of shit, as usual.

The Espionage Act
National defense information in general is protected by the Espionage 
Act,21 18 U.S.C. §§ 793– 798, while other types of relevant information 
are covered elsewhere. Some provisions apply only to government 
employees or others who have authorized access to sensitive government 
information, but the following provisions apply to all persons. 18 
U.S.C. § 793 prohibits the gathering, transmitting, or receipt of 
defense information with the intent or reason to believe the information 
will be used against the United States or to the benefit of a foreign 
nation.

Violators are subject to a fine or up to 10 years imprisonment, or both, 
as are those who conspire to violate the statute. Persons who possess 
defense information that they have reason to know could be used to harm 
the national security, whether the access is authorized or unauthorized, 
and who disclose that information to any person not entitled to receive 
it, or who fail to surrender the information to an officer of the United 
States, are subject to the same penalty. Although it is not necessary 
that the information be classified by a government agency, the courts 
seem to give deference to the executive determination of what 
constitutes “defense information.” Information that is made available by 
the government to the public is not covered under the prohibition, 
however, because public availability of such information negates the 
bad-faith intent requirement.

On the other hand, classified documents remain within the ambit of the 
statute even if information contained therein is made public by an 
unauthorized leak.

-- 
"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