Liste des Groupes | Revenir à ra tv |
In article <uu9d3v$1363u$3@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>So Trump is off the hook in Florida? Have you told him yet?
wrote:
On 3/29/24 1:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:No, it's so because the Supreme Court says it's so.In article <uu6i9c$b577$2@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>Nope. Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it so.
wrote:
>On 3/28/24 1:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:>In article <uu3tmd$3kalu$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>>
wrote:
>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:>>>Don't need to be. I'm still protected under the 1st Amendment.>Seems you're now arguing for freedom of the press, as ifEffa disputed it: "Or try publishing National Defense
anyone
in
this dialogue has ever disputed it.
secrets..."
Not many Usenet points for that...Points restored.
Thanny isn't a journalist.
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 ActNew York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
National defense information in general is protected by the
Espionage
Act,21 18 U.S.C. зз 793н 798
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in NY Times v U.S. are superseded by it.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;
Jesus, can you read?
>
New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
>
You're not the NY Times.
Don't have to be. Nowhere in the opinion did the Court limit its
decision to only huge legacy media corporations. And in subsequent
decisions has recognized the speech of ordinary citizens doing nothing
more than posting on the internet as protected by the Free Press Clause.
>
This has been explained to you for decades. Decades...
>
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.