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

On 3/22/24 4:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 22, 2024 at 4:08:21 AM PDT, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
 

On 3/21/24 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.
 

Nope, it was perfectly apt, and nothing you cited changed that.
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.

 No, I don't. Every time you bring that up, I ask you whether you think that
it'd be okay for the government to make exceptions to Amendment XIX and
prohibit women from voting since "no amendment is sacrosanct", after all. Or
since "no amendment is sacrosanct", it'd be okay for the government to
prohibit black people from voting (Amendment XV) and allow people to be owned
as slaves (Amendment XIII).
 And that's when *you* go into a coma.

If this SCOTUS has proven anything, it's that the justices can do whatever they like.  Your bullshit rules no longer apply to a court that's corrupt.
They take money, and rule for their friends.  Their spouses are involved in the cases, and they don't recuse.
Don't give my your sanctimonious bullshit.  I told you when Gorsuch took a stolen seat that this court was illegitimate.
I was right, but even I had no idea how corrupt they could be.
--
"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