Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 12:04:51 -0400
Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn.
Lines: 147
Message-ID: <uu9d73$1363u$4@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$2@dont-email.me> <VcDNN.150959$TSTa.88110@fx47.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: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 16:04:51 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1fe43f605f9dc30c52d895c842fa8a60";
	logging-data="1153150"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18uZtEMK+/ZzxAe4q9F25so"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:uAMUQPv5CDnaz+bAe4/4AIsupjs=
In-Reply-To: <VcDNN.150959$TSTa.88110@fx47.iad>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7790

On 3/29/24 1:51 PM, trotsky wrote:
> On 3/29/24 9:12 AM, FPP 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.
> 
> 
> If anything he sounds more like High Times.
> 

Still trying to figure out why Trump hasn't retained Thanny to defend 
him in the Florida documents case?

Seems as if he could get him off easy, just by quoting from his Usenet 
posts.  I mean, if it's not illegal and all...

-- 
"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