Re: Ketanji Jackson Worried That the 1st Amendment is Hamstringing Government Censorship

In 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:

>

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.)
>

And the press is a protected institution. You're not the press.

>
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.