Path: ...!news.mixmin.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, 29 Mar 2024 10:12:59 -0400
Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn.
Lines: 134
Message-ID: <uu6i9c$b577$2@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>
 <utmrou$3n3jl$3@dont-email.me>
 <atropos-DA20D8.10523923032024@news.giganews.com>
 <utua5t$1p4c6$2@dont-email.me>
 <atropos-DEB821.08591626032024@news.giganews.com>
 <uu3tmd$3kalu$1@dont-email.me>
 <atropos-F3DF7D.10482528032024@news.giganews.com>
Reply-To: fredp1571@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 14:13:00 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="57e7f22618a88286219793465c2ee86f";
	logging-data="365799"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+dIAF0M0VoQK1zeGCy1sxV"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rQduliB36DH4MYgLxXx9A9iqHxU=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <atropos-F3DF7D.10482528032024@news.giganews.com>
Bytes: 7140

On 3/28/24 1:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <uu3tmd$3kalu$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/26/24 11:59 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <utua5t$1p4c6$2@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/23/24 1:52 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <utmrou$3n3jl$3@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. зз 793н 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
>>>>>
>>>>> (Note: I'm the one who consistently produces cites in this thread to
>>>>> back up what I say. Effa is the one who lies and says I don't have cites
>>>>> and then makes ridiculous claims with no cites to back up what *he*
>>>>> says.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are not the NY Times. Bullshit.
>>>
>>> So now you're seriously arguing that the Court's decision in NY Times
>>> vs. U.S. *only* applies to the NY Times?
>>>
>>> Jeezus, did you just skip grade school altogether or something?
>>>
>>
>> Jesus, can you read?
>>
>> 18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information
>> (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits,
>> or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or
>> uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United
>> States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of
>> the United States any classified information—
>> (1)
>> concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or
>> cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
>> (2)
>> concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any
>> device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by
>> the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or
>> communication intelligence purposes; or
>> (3)
>> concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United
>> States or any foreign government; or
>> (4)
>> obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the
>> communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been
>> obtained by such processes—
>> Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years,
>> or both.
>>
>> (b)
>> As used in subsection (a) of this section—
>> The term “classified information” means information which, at the time
>> of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security,
>> specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited
>> or restricted dissemination or distribution;
> 
> Jesus, can you read?
> 
> New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
> 

You're not the NY Times.

-- 
"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