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

In article <17bf6e37e6780b72$41800$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com>,
  moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
 

On 3/23/2024 3:16 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:26:58 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>

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

In other words the "reductio ad absurdem" argument where one defeats
an argument by showing where the logical extension from it leads to an
absurdity.

>
"SOME amendments are sacrosanct", a theologism, is what's absurd here.

 So explain how , for example, Amendment XIII might be acceptably
regulated beyond it's plain text.