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: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 09:33:07 -0400
Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn.
Lines: 166
Message-ID: <uubomj$1qc9d$7@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>
 <uu9d3v$1363u$3@dont-email.me>
 <atropos-0C1EAD.13521530032024@69.muaa.rchm.washdctt.dsl.att.net>
Reply-To: fredp1571@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 13:33:08 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="48f46fa3d9b81fa8573e8cc4350f68f3";
	logging-data="1913133"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/zy0Gj2UCZS3xOEhGIhtBJ"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+jR/8lRJfzYsjqad58Il169eJWs=
In-Reply-To: <atropos-0C1EAD.13521530032024@69.muaa.rchm.washdctt.dsl.att.net>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8860

On 3/30/24 4:52 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <uu9d3v$1363u$3@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/29/24 1:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <uu6i9c$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.
> 
> No, it's so because the Supreme Court says it's so.
> 

So Trump is off the hook in Florida?  Have you told him yet?

-- 
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC 
Bible  25B.G.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========