Liste des Groupes | Revenir à ra tv |
On 3/21/24 4:23 PM, BTR1701 wrote:In article <17bede76861e0687$3579$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>,Nope, it was perfectly apt, and nothing you cited changed that.
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.
SCALIA. Remember him?
Because every time I bring him up to you about how no amendment is
sacrosanct (not even the second), you fall into that coma again.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.