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

On 3/26/24 11:59 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <utua5t$1p4c6$2@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
 

On 3/23/24 1:52 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <utmrou$3n3jl$3@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 3/22/24 5:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

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:

>

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. зз 793н 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in NY Times v U.S. are superseded by it.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.

>

Bullshit.

>
New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
>
(Note: I'm the one who consistently produces cites in this thread to
back up what I say. Effa is the one who lies and says I don't have cites
and then makes ridiculous claims with no cites to back up what *he*
says.)
>

>
You are not the NY Times. Bullshit.

 
So now you're seriously arguing that the Court's decision in NY Times
vs. U.S. *only* applies to the NY Times?
 
Jeezus, did you just skip grade school altogether or something?
 

 
Jesus, can you read?
 
18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits,
or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or
uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United
States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of
the United States any classified information—
(1)
concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or
cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2)
concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any
device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by
the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or
communication intelligence purposes; or
(3)
concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United
States or any foreign government; or
(4)
obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the
communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been
obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years,
or both.
 
(b)
As used in subsection (a) of this section—
The term “classified information” means information which, at the time
of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security,
specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited
or restricted dissemination or distribution;