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: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 11:16:46 -0400
Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn.
Lines: 125
Message-ID: <utmrou$3n3jl$3@dont-email.me>
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>
Reply-To: fredp1571@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 15:16:46 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="54e6098056b1e9db8213ada7a5b01c77";
	logging-data="3903093"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Q3heKSz5rs44cU/oqexRe"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mtk2I6Qlbz1Ob1QIx1AiuxBq1Ws=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <Y26dnWI6_a92bGD4nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>
Bytes: 7031

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:
>>>>>     
>>>>>>     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.
>>>   
>>>   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. §§ 793– 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.

-- 
"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