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

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:
 

  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.

 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. §§ 793– 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?
I don't buy it.