Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Ian J. Ball" <ijball@mac.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Dub-Dub Is on GREY'S Now?!?!!
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 21:40:21 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <v0sh3l$2veuh$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 01 May 2024 06:40:22 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="70c803fef3ca3c1c58bf262e6f2d78a0";
	logging-data="3128273"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Kja4sndQmrfDDVMK7RdHI"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:dy3QQxvdObE8Eq0+aUuUhO61yJE=
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 1387

So, I'm watching the new episode of THE COOKIE (don't ask!), and I just 
saw an ad for the next episode of "Grey's Anatomy", and...

Natalie Morales is clearly in it!
And she seems to be an important character (judging from the ad).

Deadline or TVLine described Morales' role as "recurring" (and recent), 
but I wonder if she's going to get upped to main cast for next season of 
"Grey's"...

NOW ANIM FINALLY HAS A REASON TO WATCH GREY'S!!1!  :)  :)  :)

01 wrote:
>>>>>>>>FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On 3/19/24 10:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>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?

>>>>He hasn't given a citation, has he? Last I checked, as of Feb 2024, 2 
>>>>cases were still before the court.

>>>>No decision I've seen yet. But, Thanny doesn't need citations. He just 
>>>>makes it up these days.

>>>You can't stop lying, can you, Shit-Shoes? I literally gave you 
>>>citations to two different Supreme Court cases in this thread alone.

>>>You're the one who makes shit up (like "only employees of big legacy 
>>>media corporations are covered by the Free Press Clause") with no 
>>>citations to back it up, despite boldly proclaiming in the past that you 
>>>never post anything without a citation to back it up.

>>The civil right protecting the liberty of freedom of the press protects
>>any publisher. "Publishing" includes all aspects of the process of
>>communication: putting it into a fixed form, printing or copying it or
>>reproducing it electronically or photographically if it's not literally
>>on paper, and then distributing it to its intended audience.

>>The government cannot interfere in any aspect without infringing upon
>>this liberty with civil rights protection. For instance, it cannot say
>>that it's alright to mass produce a newspaper but making it illegal to
>>sell or distribute it.

>>If you are the publisher, then you are protected from censorship. There
>>is no limitation on which publishers are protected in the Constitution.

>>How did Fred Phelps not learn this in elementary school?

>He's also denying that Judicial Review exists now, too.

>Dude's losing it.

I think I was taught this in elementary school too. American history
class hits all the highlights but doesn't go into too much detail. For
years, I was left with the impression that John Marshall originated the
concept of judicial review in Marbury vs. Madison but there have been
arguments over the years that the concept was inherited from the way
English courts functioned.