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

On Mar 22, 2024 at 1:49:13 PM PDT, "moviePig" <never@nothere.com> wrote:
 

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?

 There'd be plenty of reprisal in court of public opinion, but any official
government sanction would be illegal.