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, 30 Mar 2024 12:03:11 -0400
Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn.
Lines: 158
Message-ID: <uu9d3v$1363u$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$1@dont-email.me>
 <atropos-F3DF7D.10482528032024@news.giganews.com>
 <uu6i9c$b577$2@dont-email.me>
 <atropos-670537.10490929032024@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: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 16:03:12 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1fe43f605f9dc30c52d895c842fa8a60";
	logging-data="1153150"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19YWaC4oAZgcMSAnrhRjSg+"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:miIMu1c8hPY/wT51yP8mefJ+bnY=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <atropos-670537.10490929032024@news.giganews.com>
Bytes: 8207

On 3/29/24 1:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <uu6i9c$b577$2@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Don't have to be. Nowhere in the opinion did the Court limit its
> decision to only huge legacy media corporations. And in subsequent
> decisions has recognized the speech of ordinary citizens doing nothing
> more than posting on the internet as protected by the Free Press Clause.
> 
> This has been explained to you for decades. Decades...
> 

Nope.  Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it so.

You can't knowingly publish classified docs if they can damage the 
national security.

I mean, ask Trump.

-- 
"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