Liste des Groupes | Revenir à ra tv |
In article <17bee53b6fc0a7b7$1$1768716$4ad50060@news.newsdemon.com>,Seems you're now arguing for freedom of the press, as if anyone in this dialogue has ever disputed it. Not many Usenet points for that...
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/21/2024 4:23 PM, BTR1701 wrote:But there isn't two centuries of robust interpretation *plus* the plainIn article <17bede76861e0687$3579$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>,>
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>On 3/21/2024 2:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:>In article>
<17bed676b63ac4b3$30484$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>On 3/21/2024 11:05 AM, FPP wrote:>On 3/20/24 2:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:In article <utevar$1iacj$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:>>And the press is a protected institution. You're not the press.Or try publishing National Defense secrets...>
No, Effa, we already resolved that one and, as usual, your point of
view loses:
>
New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
>
RULING: The New York Times' publishing of the national security
information found in the Pentagon Papers is protected speech under the
1st Amendment, even during time of war.
>
Once again reinforcing that there is no 'emergency exception' to the
requirements and restrictions the Constitution places on the
government.
>
(This is one of those landmark cases that you should have learned
about in grade school, Effa. Certainly something a self-proclaimed
amateur historian should-- but apparently doesn't-- know.)
>
A key difference being that the press is assumed to be a responsible
source of information and not a bullhorn.
That is not and never has been a condition of SCOTUS free press
jurisprudence.
Right. Just like how the 2nd amendment doesn't exclude WMDs...
Analogy fail.
>
You're comparing the text of an amendment to 200+ years of Supreme Court
jurisprudence interpreting an amendment.
Fail failed. Many amendments have been "interpreted" for 200+ years
...and yet are still being "interpreted".
text of the 2nd Amendment that supports your comparison. There is
however two centuries of robust interpretation *plus* the plain text of
the 1st Amendment in opposition to the idea that the 1st Amendment takes
a back seat to government censorship so long as the government says it
really, really, honestly, pinky-swear needs to.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.