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 07:22:34 -0400
Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn.
Lines: 130
Message-ID: <utjplq$2stl7$2@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>
 <atropos-01BBB1.10295821032024@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 11:22:34 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6a12f5494fe329ae11de877e3270d04b";
	logging-data="3045031"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ib8K/jGrbC+chqJRQHvN0"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2WzMcVPJCxYDaBefJHNtQgsfEwE=
In-Reply-To: <atropos-01BBB1.10295821032024@news.giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7223

On 3/21/24 1:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <uthibv$29328$7@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/20/24 2:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <utevar$1iacj$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/19/24 10:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>
>>>>> WTF? What country do you think this is, Ketanji?
>>>>>
>>>>> The Bill of Rights wasn't written to restrain WE THE PEOPLE.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was written to restrain THE GOVERNMENT.
>>>>>
>>>>> Getting in the way of government censorship efforts is precisely what the
>>>>> 1st Amendment was intended to do. It's a feature, not a bug. If the
>>>>> government's attempts at censorship are hitting a brick wall because of
>>>>> the
>>>>> 1st Amendment, that's a sign everything's working as intended.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's become stunningly apparent why Biden diversity-hired your Marxist
>>>>> ass.
>>>>>
>>>>> -------------------
>>>>> https://gazette.com/news/wex/ketanji-brown-jackson-concerned-first-amendme
>>>>> nt
>>>>> -is-hamstringing-government-from-censorship/article_5a732827-ef9a-56fd-a10
>>>>> b-
>>>>> aee7be8cb179.amp.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised concerns that the 1st
>>>>> Amendment may stand in the way of government censorship in unique times.
> 
>>>>> "You seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the
>>>>> government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful
>>>>> information," Jackson said. "So, can you help me? Because I'm really
>>>>> worried about that because you've got the 1st Amendment operating in an
>>>>> environment of threatening circumstances, from the government's
>>>>> perspective, and you're saying that the government can't interact with
>>>>> the source of those problems."
>>>>>
>>>>> Aguiñaga said his view was that the government should intervene in
>>>>> certain situations, but it has to do so by following the 1st Amendment.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Our position is not that the government can't interact with the
>>>>> platforms there. They can and they should in certain circumstances
>>>>> like that, that present such dangerous issues for society and
>>>>> especially young people," Aguiñaga said in response. "But the way
>>>>> they do that has to be in compliance with the 1st Amendment and I
>>>>> think that means they can give them all the true information that
>>>>> the platform needs and ask to amplify that."
>>>>>
>>>>> Jackson said a "once-in-a-lifetime pandemic" or other emergencies would
>>>>> provide grounds for the government to censor social media posts that are
>>>>> misinformative.
> 
>>>> The government has the power and, indeed the right to make sure that
>>>> harmful information doesn't get to the public.
>>>
>>> (1) The government has no rights. Only citizens have rights. Government
>>> only has powers granted to it by the citizens.
>>>
>>> (2) Whatever power the the government may have with regard to 'harmful
>>> information' is limited by the 1st Amendment's prohibition on government
>>> censorship.
>>>
>>> The 1st Amendment doesn't say, "...shall make no law abridging the
>>> freedom of speech, except if some government bureaucrat decides what
>>> you're saying is harmful".
>>>
>>> (3) This restriction on government power doesn't even go away when
>>> there's an emergency, as the Supreme Court has ruled:
>>>
>>> "Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may
>>> disregard the provisions of the Constitution in case of emergency."  Ex
>>> parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)
>>>
>>>>> "I'm interested in your view that the context does't change the 1st
>>>>> Amendment principles," she said. "I understood our 1st Amendment
>>>>> jurisprudence to require heightened scrutiny of government restrictions
>>>>> of speech, but not necessarily a total prohibition when you're talking
>>>>> about a compelling interest of the government to ensure, for example,
>>>>> that the public has accurate information in the context of a once-in-
>>>>> a-lifetime pandemic."
>>>>
>>>> Try telling kids to eat Tide Pods because they're good for them and see
>>>> where it gets you.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> You're 0 for 2 on this one, Shit-Shoes. Wanna go for the hat trick?
> 

Read the Espionage act fuckwad?
Oh, what AM I saying... I forgot about your reading skilz.

I apologize.  The disabled get a pass.

-- 
"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