| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<uu6iau$b577$3@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: Ketanji Jackson Worried That the 1st Amendment is Hamstringing Government Censorship Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 10:13:50 -0400 Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn. Lines: 138 Message-ID: <uu6iau$b577$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> <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$1@dont-email.me> <atropos-F3DF7D.10482528032024@news.giganews.com> <LsjNN.729423$xHn7.31062@fx14.iad> 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 14:13:50 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="57e7f22618a88286219793465c2ee86f"; logging-data="365799"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+QB6ejpIawUnPoang4PT8p" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:J7+mmSjtdpWmrJGiED+P6ph6wd8= In-Reply-To: <LsjNN.729423$xHn7.31062@fx14.iad> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 7358 On 3/28/24 3:23 PM, trotsky wrote: > On 3/28/24 12:48 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) > > > > Can you read? He keeps citing a news organization as the justification for citizens to act like the Press. -- "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