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

On 3/21/24 7:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article
<17bee95657459db9$30487$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com>,
  moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
 

On 3/21/2024 5:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <17bee53b6fc0a7b7$1$1768716$4ad50060@news.newsdemon.com>,
   moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>

On 3/21/2024 4:23 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

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.

>
Fail failed.  Many amendments have been "interpreted" for 200+ years
...and yet are still being "interpreted".

>
But there isn't two centuries of robust interpretation *plus* the plain
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.

>
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.  But he is full of shit, as usual.
The Espionage Act
National defense information in general is protected by the Espionage Act,21 18 U.S.C. §§ 793– 798, while other types of relevant information are covered elsewhere. Some provisions apply only to government employees or others who have authorized access to sensitive government information, but the following provisions apply to all persons. 18 U.S.C. § 793 prohibits the gathering, transmitting, or receipt of defense information with the intent or reason to believe the information will be used against the United States or to the benefit of a foreign nation.
Violators are subject to a fine or up to 10 years imprisonment, or both, as are those who conspire to violate the statute. Persons who possess defense information that they have reason to know could be used to harm the national security, whether the access is authorized or unauthorized, and who disclose that information to any person not entitled to receive it, or who fail to surrender the information to an officer of the United States, are subject to the same penalty. Although it is not necessary that the information be classified by a government agency, the courts seem to give deference to the executive determination of what constitutes “defense information.” Information that is made available by the government to the public is not covered under the prohibition, however, because public availability of such information negates the bad-faith intent requirement.
On the other hand, classified documents remain within the ambit of the statute even if information contained therein is made public by an unauthorized leak.
--
"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