On 3/19/24 10:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
WTF? What country do you think this is, Ketanji?
The Bill of Rights wasn't written to restrain WE THE PEOPLE.
It was written to restrain THE GOVERNMENT.
Getting in the way of government censorship efforts is precisely what the 1st Amendment was intended to do. It's a feature, not a bug. If the government's attempts at censorship are hitting a brick wall because of the 1st Amendment, that's a sign everything's working as intended.
It's become stunningly apparent why Biden diversity-hired your Marxist ass.
------------------- https://gazette.com/news/wex/ketanji-brown-jackson-concerned-first-amendment
-is-hamstringing-government-from-censorship/article_5a732827-ef9a-56fd-a10b-
aee7be8cb179.amp.html
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised concerns that the 1st Amendment may stand in the way of government censorship in unique times.
In Monday's oral arguments for Murthy v. Missouri, Jackson appeared to be skeptical that the government could not censor social media posts in "the most important time periods".
"My biggest concern is that your view has the 1st Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods,"Jackson said to Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiaga.
"You seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information," Jackson said. "So, can you help me? Because I'm really worried about that because you've got the 1st Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances, from the government's perspective, and you're saying that the government can't interact with the source of those problems."
Aguiaga said his view was that the government should intervene in certain situations, but it has to do so by following the 1st Amendment.
"Our position is not that the government can't interact with the platforms there. They can and they should in certain circumstances like that, that present such dangerous issues for society and especially young people," Aguiaga said in response. "But the way they do that has to be in compliance with the 1st Amendment and I think that means they can give them all the true information that the platform needs and ask to amplify that."
Jackson said a "once-in-a-lifetime pandemic" or other emergencies would provide grounds for the government to censor social media posts that are misinformative.
"I'm interested in your view that the context doesn't change the 1st Amendment principles," she said. "I understood our 1st Amendment jurisprudence to require heightened scrutiny of government restrictions of speech, but not necessarily a total prohibition when you're talking about a compelling interest of the government to ensure, for example, that the public has accurate information in the context of a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic."
[Except a lot of that censored information turned out to be true and the "officially approved" info false, which should highlight the dangers of carving out *any* exceptions to the "...shall make NO law" standard.]
Jackson was harshly criticized for her comments, with Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) referencing her argument and saying it was "literally one of the craziest things I've ever seen. That you could have a Supreme Court Justice say that in the oral argument made no sense to me. That is frightening. Because if she really believes that, that is scary where we are heading."
The government has the power and, indeed the right to make sure that
harmful information doesn't get to the public.
"I'm interested in your view that the context does't change the 1st Amendment principles," she said. "I understood our 1st Amendment jurisprudence to require heightened scrutiny of government restrictions of speech, but not necessarily a total prohibition when you're talking about a compelling interest of the government to ensure, for example, that the public has accurate information in the context of a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic."
Try telling kids to eat Tide Pods because they're good for them and see
where it gets you.
Or try publishing National Defense secrets...
On 3/19/24 10:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
WTF? What country do you think this is, Ketanji?
The Bill of Rights wasn't written to restrain WE THE PEOPLE.
It was written to restrain THE GOVERNMENT.
Jesus H. Christ, what a fucking MAGA Moron...
WTF? What country do you think this is, Ketanji?
The Bill of Rights wasn't written to restrain WE THE PEOPLE.
It was written to restrain THE GOVERNMENT.
Getting in the way of government censorship efforts is precisely what the
1st Amendment was intended to do. It's a feature, not a bug. If the >government's attempts at censorship are hitting a brick wall because of the >1st Amendment, that's a sign everything's working as intended.
It's become stunningly apparent why Biden diversity-hired your Marxist ass.
------------------- >https://gazette.com/news/wex/ketanji-brown-jackson-concerned-first-amendment-is-hamstringing-government-from-censorship/article_5a732827-ef9a-56fd-a10b-aee7be8cb179.amp.html
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised concerns that the 1st >Amendment may stand in the way of government censorship in unique times.
In Monday's oral arguments for Murthy v. Missouri, Jackson appeared to be >skeptical that the government could not censor social media posts in "the >most important time periods".
"My biggest concern is that your view has the 1st Amendment hamstringing
the government in significant ways in the most important time >periods,"Jackson said to Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguinaga.
"You seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the >government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful >information," Jackson said. "So, can you help me? Because I'm really
worried about that because you've got the 1st Amendment operating in an >environment of threatening circumstances, from the government's
perspective, and you're saying that the government can't interact with the >source of those problems."
Aguinaga said his view was that the government should intervene in certain >situations, but it has to do so by following the 1st Amendment.
"Our position is not that the government can't interact with the platforms >there. They can and they should in certain circumstances like that, that >present such dangerous issues for society and especially young people," >Aguinaga said in response. "But the way they do that has to be in
compliance with the 1st Amendment and I think that means they can give them >all the true information that the platform needs and ask to amplify that."
Jackson said a "once-in-a-lifetime pandemic" or other emergencies would >provide grounds for the government to censor social media posts that are >misinformative.
"I'm interested in your view that the context doesn't change the 1st >Amendment principles," she said. "I understood our 1st Amendment >jurisprudence to require heightened scrutiny of government restrictions of >speech, but not necessarily a total prohibition when you're talking about a >compelling interest of the government to ensure, for example, that the
public has accurate information in the context of a once-in-a-lifetime >pandemic."
[Except a lot of that censored information turned out to be true and the >"officially approved" info false, which should highlight the dangers of >carving out *any* exceptions to the "...shall make NO law" standard.]
Jackson was harshly criticized for her comments, with Rep. Jim Jordan
(R-OH) referencing her argument and saying it was "literally one of the >craziest things I've ever seen. That you could have a Supreme Court Justice >say that in the oral argument made no sense to me. That is frightening. >Because if she really believes that, that is scary where we are heading."
On 3/19/24 10:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
WTF? What country do you think this is, Ketanji?
The Bill of Rights wasn't written to restrain WE THE PEOPLE.
It was written to restrain THE GOVERNMENT.
Jesus H. Christ, what a fucking MAGA Moron...
WTF? What country do you think this is, Ketanji?
The Bill of Rights wasn't written to restrain WE THE PEOPLE.
It was written to restrain THE GOVERNMENT.
Getting in the way of government censorship efforts is precisely what the
1st Amendment was intended to do. It's a feature, not a bug. If the government's attempts at censorship are hitting a brick wall because of the 1st Amendment, that's a sign everything's working as intended.
It's become stunningly apparent why Biden diversity-hired your Marxist ass.
------------------- https://gazette.com/news/wex/ketanji-brown-jackson-concerned-first-amendment-is-hamstringing-government-from-censorship/article_5a732827-ef9a-56fd-a10b-aee7be8cb179.amp.html
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised concerns that the 1st Amendment may stand in the way of government censorship in unique times.
In Monday's oral arguments for Murthy v. Missouri, Jackson appeared to be skeptical that the government could not censor social media posts in "the most important time periods".
"My biggest concern is that your view has the 1st Amendment hamstringing
the government in significant ways in the most important time periods,"Jackson said to Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga.
"You seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information," Jackson said. "So, can you help me? Because I'm really
worried about that because you've got the 1st Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances, from the government's
perspective, and you're saying that the government can't interact with the source of those problems."
Aguiñaga said his view was that the government should intervene in certain situations, but it has to do so by following the 1st Amendment.
"Our position is not that the government can't interact with the platforms there. They can and they should in certain circumstances like that, that present such dangerous issues for society and especially young people," Aguiñaga said in response. "But the way they do that has to be in
compliance with the 1st Amendment and I think that means they can give them all the true information that the platform needs and ask to amplify that."
Jackson said a "once-in-a-lifetime pandemic" or other emergencies would provide grounds for the government to censor social media posts that are misinformative.
"I'm interested in your view that the context doesn't change the 1st Amendment principles," she said. "I understood our 1st Amendment jurisprudence to require heightened scrutiny of government restrictions of speech, but not necessarily a total prohibition when you're talking about a compelling interest of the government to ensure, for example, that the
public has accurate information in the context of a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic."
[Except a lot of that censored information turned out to be true and the "officially approved" info false, which should highlight the dangers of carving out *any* exceptions to the "...shall make NO law" standard.]
Jackson was harshly criticized for her comments, with Rep. Jim Jordan
(R-OH) referencing her argument and saying it was "literally one of the craziest things I've ever seen. That you could have a Supreme Court Justice say that in the oral argument made no sense to me. That is frightening. Because if she really believes that, that is scary where we are heading."
In article <uteuu6$1i449$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/19/24 10:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
WTF? What country do you think this is, Ketanji?
The Bill of Rights wasn't written to restrain WE THE PEOPLE.
It was written to restrain THE GOVERNMENT.
Jesus H. Christ, what a fucking MAGA Moron...
LOL! So according to Effa, advocating for one of the fundamental
liberties guaranteed under our Constitution-- a liberty unique to the
United States in all of human history-- makes one a moron now.
Looks like Effa and Katanji are birds of a feather. One might be tempted
to say they're fellow travelers.
On 3/20/24 2:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <utevar$1iacj$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>And the press is a protected institution. You're not the press.
wrote:
On 3/19/24 10:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
WTF? What country do you think this is, Ketanji?The government has the power and, indeed the right to make sure that
The Bill of Rights wasn't written to restrain WE THE PEOPLE.
It was written to restrain THE GOVERNMENT.
Getting in the way of government censorship efforts is precisely
what the
1st Amendment was intended to do. It's a feature, not a bug. If the
government's attempts at censorship are hitting a brick wall because
of the
1st Amendment, that's a sign everything's working as intended.
It's become stunningly apparent why Biden diversity-hired your
Marxist ass.
-------------------
https://gazette.com/news/wex/ketanji-brown-jackson-concerned-first-amendment
-is-hamstringing-government-from-censorship/article_5a732827-ef9a-56fd-a10b-
aee7be8cb179.amp.html
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised concerns that the
1st
Amendment may stand in the way of government censorship in unique
times.
In Monday's oral arguments for Murthy v. Missouri, Jackson appeared
to be
skeptical that the government could not censor social media posts in
"the
most important time periods".
"My biggest concern is that your view has the 1st Amendment
hamstringing
the government in significant ways in the most important time
periods,"Jackson said to Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga. >>>>
"You seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the >>>> government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down
harmful
information," Jackson said. "So, can you help me? Because I'm really
worried about that because you've got the 1st Amendment operating in an >>>> environment of threatening circumstances, from the government's
perspective, and you're saying that the government can't interact
with the
source of those problems."
Aguiñaga said his view was that the government should intervene in
certain
situations, but it has to do so by following the 1st Amendment.
"Our position is not that the government can't interact with the
platforms
there. They can and they should in certain circumstances like that,
that
present such dangerous issues for society and especially young people," >>>> Aguiñaga said in response. "But the way they do that has to be in
compliance with the 1st Amendment and I think that means they can
give them
all the true information that the platform needs and ask to amplify
that."
Jackson said a "once-in-a-lifetime pandemic" or other emergencies would >>>> provide grounds for the government to censor social media posts that
are
misinformative.
"I'm interested in your view that the context doesn't change the 1st
Amendment principles," she said. "I understood our 1st Amendment
jurisprudence to require heightened scrutiny of government
restrictions of
speech, but not necessarily a total prohibition when you're talking
about a
compelling interest of the government to ensure, for example, that the >>>> public has accurate information in the context of a once-in-a-lifetime >>>> pandemic."
[Except a lot of that censored information turned out to be true and
the
"officially approved" info false, which should highlight the dangers of >>>> carving out *any* exceptions to the "...shall make NO law" standard.]
Jackson was harshly criticized for her comments, with Rep. Jim Jordan
(R-OH) referencing her argument and saying it was "literally one of the >>>> craziest things I've ever seen. That you could have a Supreme Court
Justice
say that in the oral argument made no sense to me. That is frightening. >>>> Because if she really believes that, that is scary where we are
heading."
harmful information doesn't get to the public.
(1) The government has no rights. Only citizens have rights. Government
only has powers granted to it by the citizens.
(2) Whatever power the the government may have with regard to 'harmful
information' is limited by the 1st Amendment's prohibition on government
censorship.
The 1st Amendment doesn't say, "...shall make no law abridging the
freedom of speech, except if some government bureaucrat decides what
you're saying is harmful".
(3) This restriction on government power doesn't even go away when
there's an emergency, as the Supreme Court has ruled:
"Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may
disregard the provisions of the Constitution in case of emergency." Ex
parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)
"I'm interested in your view that the context does't change the 1st
Amendment principles," she said. "I understood our 1st Amendment
jurisprudence to require heightened scrutiny of government
restrictions of
speech, but not necessarily a total prohibition when you're talking
about a
compelling interest of the government to ensure, for example, that the >>>> public has accurate information in the context of a once-in-a-lifetime >>>> pandemic."
Try telling kids to eat Tide Pods because they're good for them and see
where it gets you.
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.)
On 3/20/24 1:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <uteuu6$1i449$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/19/24 10:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
WTF? What country do you think this is, Ketanji?
The Bill of Rights wasn't written to restrain WE THE PEOPLE.
It was written to restrain THE GOVERNMENT.
Jesus H. Christ, what a fucking MAGA Moron...
LOL! So according to Effa, advocating for one of the fundamental
liberties guaranteed under our Constitution-- a liberty unique to the
United States in all of human history-- makes one a moron now.
Because you are. You speak of "liberty" being an absolute concept
instead of a relative one subject to infinite interpretations by our
courts of law. A lawyer would know this.
...
On 3/20/24 2:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <uteuu6$1i449$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/19/24 10:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
WTF? What country do you think this is, Ketanji?
The Bill of Rights wasn't written to restrain WE THE PEOPLE.
It was written to restrain THE GOVERNMENT.
Jesus H. Christ, what a fucking MAGA Moron...
LOL! So according to Effa, advocating for one of the fundamental
liberties guaranteed under our Constitution-- a liberty unique to the United States in all of human history-- makes one a moron now.
Looks like Effa and Katanji are birds of a feather. One might be
tempted to say they're fellow travelers.
You support the guy who wants the Constitution terminated.
You only give a shit about the law and the Constitution if it upsets
the libs.
On 3/20/24 2:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <utevar$1iacj$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/19/24 10:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
WTF? What country do you think this is, Ketanji?
The Bill of Rights wasn't written to restrain WE THE PEOPLE.
It was written to restrain THE GOVERNMENT.
Getting in the way of government censorship efforts is precisely what the >>> 1st Amendment was intended to do. It's a feature, not a bug. If the
government's attempts at censorship are hitting a brick wall because of >>> the
1st Amendment, that's a sign everything's working as intended.
It's become stunningly apparent why Biden diversity-hired your Marxist >>> ass.
-------------------
https://gazette.com/news/wex/ketanji-brown-jackson-concerned-first-amendme
nt
-is-hamstringing-government-from-censorship/article_5a732827-ef9a-56fd-a10
b-
aee7be8cb179.amp.html
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised concerns that the 1st >>> Amendment may stand in the way of government censorship in unique times.
"You seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the >>> government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful >>> information," Jackson said. "So, can you help me? Because I'm really
worried about that because you've got the 1st Amendment operating in an >>> environment of threatening circumstances, from the government's
perspective, and you're saying that the government can't interact with >>> the source of those problems."
Aguiaga said his view was that the government should intervene in
certain situations, but it has to do so by following the 1st Amendment. >>>
"Our position is not that the government can't interact with the
platforms there. They can and they should in certain circumstances
like that, that present such dangerous issues for society and
especially young people," Aguiaga said in response. "But the way
they do that has to be in compliance with the 1st Amendment and I
think that means they can give them all the true information that
the platform needs and ask to amplify that."
Jackson said a "once-in-a-lifetime pandemic" or other emergencies would >>> provide grounds for the government to censor social media posts that are >>> misinformative.
The government has the power and, indeed the right to make sure that
harmful information doesn't get to the public.
(1) The government has no rights. Only citizens have rights. Government only has powers granted to it by the citizens.
(2) Whatever power the the government may have with regard to 'harmful information' is limited by the 1st Amendment's prohibition on government censorship.
The 1st Amendment doesn't say, "...shall make no law abridging the
freedom of speech, except if some government bureaucrat decides what
you're saying is harmful".
(3) This restriction on government power doesn't even go away when
there's an emergency, as the Supreme Court has ruled:
"Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may disregard the provisions of the Constitution in case of emergency." Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)
"I'm interested in your view that the context does't change the 1st
Amendment principles," she said. "I understood our 1st Amendment
jurisprudence to require heightened scrutiny of government restrictions >>> of speech, but not necessarily a total prohibition when you're talking >>> about a compelling interest of the government to ensure, for example,
that the public has accurate information in the context of a once-in-
a-lifetime pandemic."
Try telling kids to eat Tide Pods because they're good for them and see
where it gets you.
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.
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:
And the press is a protected institution. You're not the press.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.)
A key difference being that the press is assumed to be a responsible
source of information and not a bullhorn.
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:
And the press is a protected institution. You're not the press.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.)
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.
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:
And the press is a protected institution. You're not the press.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.)
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...
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:
And the press is a protected institution. You're not the press.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.)
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.
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:
And the press is a protected institution. You're not the press.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.)
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".
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:
And the press is a protected institution. You're not the press.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.)
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.
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:
A key difference being that the press is assumed to be a responsible >>>>>> source of information and not a bullhorn.And the press is a protected institution. You're not the press. >>>>>>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.)
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.
Not many Usenet points for that...
On 3/21/24 1:05 PM, moviePig 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>And the press is a protected institution. You're not the press.
wrote:
On 3/19/24 10:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
WTF? What country do you think this is, Ketanji?The government has the power and, indeed the right to make sure that >>>>> harmful information doesn't get to the public.
The Bill of Rights wasn't written to restrain WE THE PEOPLE.
It was written to restrain THE GOVERNMENT.
Getting in the way of government censorship efforts is precisely
what the
1st Amendment was intended to do. It's a feature, not a bug. If the >>>>>> government's attempts at censorship are hitting a brick wall
because of the
1st Amendment, that's a sign everything's working as intended.
It's become stunningly apparent why Biden diversity-hired your
Marxist ass.
-------------------
https://gazette.com/news/wex/ketanji-brown-jackson-concerned-first-amendment
-is-hamstringing-government-from-censorship/article_5a732827-ef9a-56fd-a10b-
aee7be8cb179.amp.html
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised concerns that
the 1st
Amendment may stand in the way of government censorship in unique
times.
In Monday's oral arguments for Murthy v. Missouri, Jackson
appeared to be
skeptical that the government could not censor social media posts
in "the
most important time periods".
"My biggest concern is that your view has the 1st Amendment
hamstringing
the government in significant ways in the most important time
periods,"Jackson said to Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin
Aguiñaga.
"You seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself
in the
government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down
harmful
information," Jackson said. "So, can you help me? Because I'm really >>>>>> worried about that because you've got the 1st Amendment operating
in an
environment of threatening circumstances, from the government's
perspective, and you're saying that the government can't interact
with the
source of those problems."
Aguiñaga said his view was that the government should intervene in >>>>>> certain
situations, but it has to do so by following the 1st Amendment.
"Our position is not that the government can't interact with the
platforms
there. They can and they should in certain circumstances like
that, that
present such dangerous issues for society and especially young
people,"
Aguiñaga said in response. "But the way they do that has to be in >>>>>> compliance with the 1st Amendment and I think that means they can
give them
all the true information that the platform needs and ask to
amplify that."
Jackson said a "once-in-a-lifetime pandemic" or other emergencies
would
provide grounds for the government to censor social media posts
that are
misinformative.
"I'm interested in your view that the context doesn't change the 1st >>>>>> Amendment principles," she said. "I understood our 1st Amendment
jurisprudence to require heightened scrutiny of government
restrictions of
speech, but not necessarily a total prohibition when you're
talking about a
compelling interest of the government to ensure, for example, that >>>>>> the
public has accurate information in the context of a
once-in-a-lifetime
pandemic."
[Except a lot of that censored information turned out to be true
and the
"officially approved" info false, which should highlight the
dangers of
carving out *any* exceptions to the "...shall make NO law" standard.] >>>>>>
Jackson was harshly criticized for her comments, with Rep. Jim Jordan >>>>>> (R-OH) referencing her argument and saying it was "literally one
of the
craziest things I've ever seen. That you could have a Supreme
Court Justice
say that in the oral argument made no sense to me. That is
frightening.
Because if she really believes that, that is scary where we are
heading."
(1) The government has no rights. Only citizens have rights. Government >>>> only has powers granted to it by the citizens.
(2) Whatever power the the government may have with regard to 'harmful >>>> information' is limited by the 1st Amendment's prohibition on
government
censorship.
The 1st Amendment doesn't say, "...shall make no law abridging the
freedom of speech, except if some government bureaucrat decides what
you're saying is harmful".
(3) This restriction on government power doesn't even go away when
there's an emergency, as the Supreme Court has ruled:
"Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may
disregard the provisions of the Constitution in case of emergency." Ex >>>> parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)
"I'm interested in your view that the context does't change the 1st >>>>>> Amendment principles," she said. "I understood our 1st Amendment
jurisprudence to require heightened scrutiny of government
restrictions of
speech, but not necessarily a total prohibition when you're
talking about a
compelling interest of the government to ensure, for example, that >>>>>> the
public has accurate information in the context of a
once-in-a-lifetime
pandemic."
Try telling kids to eat Tide Pods because they're good for them and
see
where it gets you.
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.)
A key difference being that the press is assumed to be a responsible
source of information and not a bullhorn.
Maybe by you, but the founders didn't have any such illusions. They
just knew that it was an unfortunate necessity.
In article <uthibv$29328$7@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/20/24 2:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <utevar$1iacj$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/19/24 10:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
WTF? What country do you think this is, Ketanji?
The Bill of Rights wasn't written to restrain WE THE PEOPLE.
It was written to restrain THE GOVERNMENT.
Getting in the way of government censorship efforts is precisely what the >>>>> 1st Amendment was intended to do. It's a feature, not a bug. If the
government's attempts at censorship are hitting a brick wall because of >>>>> the
1st Amendment, that's a sign everything's working as intended.
It's become stunningly apparent why Biden diversity-hired your Marxist >>>>> ass.
-------------------
https://gazette.com/news/wex/ketanji-brown-jackson-concerned-first-amendme
nt
-is-hamstringing-government-from-censorship/article_5a732827-ef9a-56fd-a10
b-
aee7be8cb179.amp.html
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised concerns that the 1st >>>>> Amendment may stand in the way of government censorship in unique times.
"You seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the >>>>> government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful >>>>> information," Jackson said. "So, can you help me? Because I'm really >>>>> worried about that because you've got the 1st Amendment operating in an >>>>> environment of threatening circumstances, from the government's
perspective, and you're saying that the government can't interact with >>>>> the source of those problems."
Aguiñaga said his view was that the government should intervene in
certain situations, but it has to do so by following the 1st Amendment. >>>>>
"Our position is not that the government can't interact with the
platforms there. They can and they should in certain circumstances
like that, that present such dangerous issues for society and
especially young people," Aguiñaga said in response. "But the way
they do that has to be in compliance with the 1st Amendment and I
think that means they can give them all the true information that
the platform needs and ask to amplify that."
Jackson said a "once-in-a-lifetime pandemic" or other emergencies would >>>>> provide grounds for the government to censor social media posts that are >>>>> misinformative.
And the press is a protected institution. You're not the press.The government has the power and, indeed the right to make sure that
harmful information doesn't get to the public.
(1) The government has no rights. Only citizens have rights. Government
only has powers granted to it by the citizens.
(2) Whatever power the the government may have with regard to 'harmful
information' is limited by the 1st Amendment's prohibition on government >>> censorship.
The 1st Amendment doesn't say, "...shall make no law abridging the
freedom of speech, except if some government bureaucrat decides what
you're saying is harmful".
(3) This restriction on government power doesn't even go away when
there's an emergency, as the Supreme Court has ruled:
"Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may
disregard the provisions of the Constitution in case of emergency." Ex
parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)
"I'm interested in your view that the context does't change the 1st
Amendment principles," she said. "I understood our 1st Amendment
jurisprudence to require heightened scrutiny of government restrictions >>>>> of speech, but not necessarily a total prohibition when you're talking >>>>> about a compelling interest of the government to ensure, for example, >>>>> that the public has accurate information in the context of a once-in- >>>>> a-lifetime pandemic."
Try telling kids to eat Tide Pods because they're good for them and see >>>> where it gets you.
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.)
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.
You're 0 for 2 on this one, Shit-Shoes. Wanna go for the hat trick?
On 3/21/24 1:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <uthibv$29328$7@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/20/24 2:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <utevar$1iacj$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/19/24 10:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
WTF? What country do you think this is, Ketanji?
The Bill of Rights wasn't written to restrain WE THE PEOPLE.
It was written to restrain THE GOVERNMENT.
Getting in the way of government censorship efforts is precisely what the
1st Amendment was intended to do. It's a feature, not a bug. If the >>>>>> government's attempts at censorship are hitting a brick wall because of >>>>>> the
1st Amendment, that's a sign everything's working as intended.
It's become stunningly apparent why Biden diversity-hired your Marxist >>>>>> ass.
-------------------
https://gazette.com/news/wex/ketanji-brown-jackson-concerned-first-amendme
nt
-is-hamstringing-government-from-censorship/article_5a732827-ef9a-56fd-a10
b-
aee7be8cb179.amp.html
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised concerns that the 1st
Amendment may stand in the way of government censorship in unique times.
"You seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the >>>>>> government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful
information," Jackson said. "So, can you help me? Because I'm really >>>>>> worried about that because you've got the 1st Amendment operating in an >>>>>> environment of threatening circumstances, from the government's
perspective, and you're saying that the government can't interact with >>>>>> the source of those problems."
Aguiñaga said his view was that the government should intervene in >>>>>> certain situations, but it has to do so by following the 1st Amendment. >>>>>>
"Our position is not that the government can't interact with the
platforms there. They can and they should in certain circumstances >>>>>> like that, that present such dangerous issues for society and
especially young people," Aguiñaga said in response. "But the way >>>>>> they do that has to be in compliance with the 1st Amendment and I >>>>>> think that means they can give them all the true information that >>>>>> the platform needs and ask to amplify that."
Jackson said a "once-in-a-lifetime pandemic" or other emergencies would >>>>>> provide grounds for the government to censor social media posts that are
misinformative.
And the press is a protected institution. You're not the press.The government has the power and, indeed the right to make sure that >>>>> harmful information doesn't get to the public.
(1) The government has no rights. Only citizens have rights. Government >>>> only has powers granted to it by the citizens.
(2) Whatever power the the government may have with regard to 'harmful >>>> information' is limited by the 1st Amendment's prohibition on government >>>> censorship.
The 1st Amendment doesn't say, "...shall make no law abridging the
freedom of speech, except if some government bureaucrat decides what
you're saying is harmful".
(3) This restriction on government power doesn't even go away when
there's an emergency, as the Supreme Court has ruled:
"Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may
disregard the provisions of the Constitution in case of emergency." Ex >>>> parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)
"I'm interested in your view that the context does't change the 1st >>>>>> Amendment principles," she said. "I understood our 1st Amendment
jurisprudence to require heightened scrutiny of government restrictions >>>>>> of speech, but not necessarily a total prohibition when you're talking >>>>>> about a compelling interest of the government to ensure, for example, >>>>>> that the public has accurate information in the context of a once-in- >>>>>> a-lifetime pandemic."
Try telling kids to eat Tide Pods because they're good for them and see >>>>> where it gets you.
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.)
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.
You're 0 for 2 on this one, Shit-Shoes. Wanna go for the hat trick?
Read the Espionage act fuckwad?
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:
A key difference being that the press is assumed to be a responsible >>>>>>>>> source of information and not a bullhorn.And the press is a protected institution. You're not the press. >>>>>>>>>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.) >>>>>>>>>>>
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.
The Espionage Act
National defense information in general is protected by the Espionage
Act,21 18 U.S.C. §§ 793– 798
On 3/21/24 4:23 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bede76861e0687$3579$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>,Nope, it was perfectly apt, and nothing you cited changed that.
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:
And the press is a protected institution. You're not the press.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.)
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.
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.
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:Analogy fail.
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:
A key difference being that the press is assumed to be a responsibleAnd the press is a protected institution. You're not the press. >>>>>>>>>>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.) >>>>>>>>>>>>
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... >>>>>>>
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.
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:Nope, it was perfectly apt, and nothing you cited changed that.
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:
A key difference being that the press is assumed to be a responsible >>>>>> source of information and not a bullhorn.And the press is a protected institution. You're not the press. >>>>>>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.)
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.
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.
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:Analogy fail.
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:
A key difference being that the press is assumed to be a responsibleAnd the press is a protected institution. You're not the press. >>>>>>>>>>>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.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>
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... >>>>>>>>
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?
On 3/21/24 1:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <uthiiv$297th$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/20/24 2:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <uteuu6$1i449$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>You support the guy who wants the Constitution terminated.
wrote:
On 3/19/24 10:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
WTF? What country do you think this is, Ketanji?
The Bill of Rights wasn't written to restrain WE THE PEOPLE.
It was written to restrain THE GOVERNMENT.
Jesus H. Christ, what a fucking MAGA Moron...
LOL! So according to Effa, advocating for one of the fundamental
liberties guaranteed under our Constitution-- a liberty unique to the
United States in all of human history-- makes one a moron now.
Looks like Effa and Katanji are birds of a feather. One might be
tempted to say they're fellow travelers.
Lie.
You only give a shit about the law and the Constitution if it upsets
the libs.
Lie.
The fact that I'm giving a shit about it in this very thread proves your lie. Unless, that is, you're saying "the libs" are now the
pro-censorship party in the United States and any attempt to prevent government censorship "upsets the libs".
Is that what you're saying, Shit-Shoes?
How many libs have banned books compared to Moms for Liberty?
Missouri Republican candidate torches LGBTQ-inclusive books in viral video Valentina Gomez, who is running for Missouri secretary of state, lit two books on fire, including an LGBTQ guide for teens and a sex education book.
You're not even a good fucking liar any more.
GOP Tennessee lawmaker suggests burning inappropriate books.
In the first half of the 202223 school year, PEN America, the free speech organization, tracked nearly 1,500 book bans nationwide, affecting 874 unique titles. Books centering on people of color and LGBTQ+ characters have been disproportionately targeted.
Them's you good ol' boys rite thar!
An online bookstore that advertised itself as being committed to sharing ideas, even those which are deemed controversial, has removed titles from conservative authors amid backlash.
Television host and activist RuPaul is a co-founder of the "all-inclusive" online bookstore Allstora, according to National Review. He started the online store with LGBTQ advocate and author Eric Cervini and drag performer Adam Powell.
The site advertised that they would carry titles from authors of all points of view, and books for sale on the site initially ranged from Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" to the graphic, controversial coming-of-age book "Gender Queer".
"We're a marketplace for all books and all stories, with a focus on elevating marginalized voices," the site originally touted, according to NR. "You may find books you disagree with," a pop-up ad warned, while the FAQ page said, "Allstora has made the decision to carry all books" and "censorship of any book, perspective, or story is incompatible with the survival of democracy."
However, left-wing activists were outraged that Allstora offered titles by Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Matt Walsh, Riley Gaines, and Libs of TikTok founder Chaya Raichik, among others. At first, the website's founders attempted to diffuse tension by promising to create "a community-led flagging system for titles that are contrary to our core values and donating all proceeds from these titles to fight book bans," National Review noted.
But that wasn't enough. After three days of critics railing against Allstora for selling "homophobic", "transphobic", "anti-woke", and "Nazi" books, the founders relented and removed all free speech messaging from the page. Many works by conservative authors were removed from the page, while some other titles remained available.
In article <utjpj2$2stl7$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/21/24 1:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <uthiiv$297th$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/20/24 2:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <uteuu6$1i449$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:You support the guy who wants the Constitution terminated.
On 3/19/24 10:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
WTF? What country do you think this is, Ketanji?
The Bill of Rights wasn't written to restrain WE THE PEOPLE.
It was written to restrain THE GOVERNMENT.
Jesus H. Christ, what a fucking MAGA Moron...
LOL! So according to Effa, advocating for one of the fundamental
liberties guaranteed under our Constitution-- a liberty unique to the >>>>> United States in all of human history-- makes one a moron now.
Looks like Effa and Katanji are birds of a feather. One might be
tempted to say they're fellow travelers.
Lie.
You only give a shit about the law and the Constitution if it upsets
the libs.
Lie.
The fact that I'm giving a shit about it in this very thread proves your >>> lie. Unless, that is, you're saying "the libs" are now the
pro-censorship party in the United States and any attempt to prevent
government censorship "upsets the libs".
Is that what you're saying, Shit-Shoes?
How many libs have banned books compared to Moms for Liberty?
Missouri Republican candidate torches LGBTQ-inclusive books in viral video >>> Valentina Gomez, who is running for Missouri secretary of state, lit two >>> books on fire, including an LGBTQ guide for teens and a sex education book. >>You're not even a good fucking liar any more.
GOP Tennessee lawmaker suggests burning inappropriate books.
In the first half of the 202223 school year, PEN America, the free speech >>> organization, tracked nearly 1,500 book bans nationwide, affecting 874
unique titles. Books centering on people of color and LGBTQ+ characters
have been disproportionately targeted.
Them's you good ol' boys rite thar!
Subject: Re: "All-Inclusive" Bookstore Co-Founded By RuPaul Yanks Conservative Titles Following Backlash
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 14:28:40 -0700
In article <usp3jm$666q$5@dont-email.me>,
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
An online bookstore that advertised itself as being committed to sharing
ideas, even those which are deemed controversial, has removed titles from
conservative authors amid backlash.
Television host and activist RuPaul is a co-founder of the "all-inclusive" >> online bookstore Allstora, according to National Review. He started the
online store with LGBTQ advocate and author Eric Cervini and drag performer >> Adam Powell.
The site advertised that they would carry titles from authors of all points >> of view, and books for sale on the site initially ranged from Adolf Hitler's >> "Mein Kampf" to the graphic, controversial coming-of-age book "Gender Queer".
"We're a marketplace for all books and all stories, with a focus on elevating
marginalized voices," the site originally touted, according to NR. "You may >> find books you disagree with," a pop-up ad warned, while the FAQ page said, >> "Allstora has made the decision to carry all books" and "censorship of any >> book, perspective, or story is incompatible with the survival of democracy."
However, left-wing activists were outraged that Allstora offered titles by >> Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Matt Walsh, Riley Gaines, and Libs of TikTok founder
Chaya Raichik, among others. At first, the website's founders attempted to >> diffuse tension by promising to create "a community-led flagging system for >> titles that are contrary to our core values and donating all proceeds from >> these titles to fight book bans," National Review noted.
But that wasn't enough. After three days of critics railing against Allstora >> for selling "homophobic", "transphobic", "anti-woke", and "Nazi" books, the >> founders relented and removed all free speech messaging from the page. Many >> works by conservative authors were removed from the page, while some other >> titles remained available.
Just goes to show you how downright hypocritical leftists are when they screech about "Republican book bans".
They'll ban a book in the blink of an eye if it doesn't meet their ideological rigor.
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 article <utjpj2$2stl7$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/21/24 1:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <uthiiv$297th$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/20/24 2:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <uteuu6$1i449$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:You support the guy who wants the Constitution terminated.
On 3/19/24 10:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
WTF? What country do you think this is, Ketanji?
The Bill of Rights wasn't written to restrain WE THE PEOPLE.
It was written to restrain THE GOVERNMENT.
Jesus H. Christ, what a fucking MAGA Moron...
LOL! So according to Effa, advocating for one of the fundamental
liberties guaranteed under our Constitution-- a liberty unique to the >>>>> United States in all of human history-- makes one a moron now.
Looks like Effa and Katanji are birds of a feather. One might be
tempted to say they're fellow travelers.
Lie.
You only give a shit about the law and the Constitution if it upsets
the libs.
Lie.
The fact that I'm giving a shit about it in this very thread proves your >>> lie. Unless, that is, you're saying "the libs" are now the
pro-censorship party in the United States and any attempt to prevent
government censorship "upsets the libs".
Is that what you're saying, Shit-Shoes?
How many libs have banned books compared to Moms for Liberty?
Missouri Republican candidate torches LGBTQ-inclusive books in viral video >>> Valentina Gomez, who is running for Missouri secretary of state, lit two >>> books on fire, including an LGBTQ guide for teens and a sex education book. >>You're not even a good fucking liar any more.
GOP Tennessee lawmaker suggests burning inappropriate books.
In the first half of the 202223 school year, PEN America, the free speech >>> organization, tracked nearly 1,500 book bans nationwide, affecting 874
unique titles. Books centering on people of color and LGBTQ+ characters
have been disproportionately targeted.
Them's you good ol' boys rite thar!
Subject: Re: "All-Inclusive" Bookstore Co-Founded By RuPaul Yanks Conservative Titles Following Backlash
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 14:28:40 -0700
In article <usp3jm$666q$5@dont-email.me>,
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
An online bookstore that advertised itself as being committed to sharing
ideas, even those which are deemed controversial, has removed titles from
conservative authors amid backlash.
Television host and activist RuPaul is a co-founder of the "all-inclusive" >> online bookstore Allstora, according to National Review. He started the
online store with LGBTQ advocate and author Eric Cervini and drag performer >> Adam Powell.
The site advertised that they would carry titles from authors of all points >> of view, and books for sale on the site initially ranged from Adolf Hitler's >> "Mein Kampf" to the graphic, controversial coming-of-age book "Gender Queer".
"We're a marketplace for all books and all stories, with a focus on elevating
marginalized voices," the site originally touted, according to NR. "You may >> find books you disagree with," a pop-up ad warned, while the FAQ page said, >> "Allstora has made the decision to carry all books" and "censorship of any >> book, perspective, or story is incompatible with the survival of democracy."
However, left-wing activists were outraged that Allstora offered titles by >> Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Matt Walsh, Riley Gaines, and Libs of TikTok founder
Chaya Raichik, among others. At first, the website's founders attempted to >> diffuse tension by promising to create "a community-led flagging system for >> titles that are contrary to our core values and donating all proceeds from >> these titles to fight book bans," National Review noted.
But that wasn't enough. After three days of critics railing against Allstora >> for selling "homophobic", "transphobic", "anti-woke", and "Nazi" books, the >> founders relented and removed all free speech messaging from the page. Many >> works by conservative authors were removed from the page, while some other >> titles remained available.
Just goes to show you how downright hypocritical leftists are when they screech about "Republican book bans".
They'll ban a book in the blink of an eye if it doesn't meet their ideological rigor.
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:In other words the "reductio ad absurdem" argument where one defeats
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.
an argument by showing where the logical extension from it leads to an absurdity.
On 3/22/24 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. 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.
Just no.
On 3/22/24 4:13 PM, trotsky wrote:
On 3/21/24 12:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <uthibv$29328$7@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/20/24 2:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <utevar$1iacj$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> >>>> wrote:
On 3/19/24 10:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Jackson said a "once-in-a-lifetime pandemic" or other emergencies >>>>>> would provide grounds for the government to censor social media posts >>>>>> that are misinformative.
And the press is a protected institution. You're not the press.The government has the power and, indeed the right to make sure that >>>>> harmful information doesn't get to the public.
(1) The government has no rights. Only citizens have rights. Government >>>> only has powers granted to it by the citizens.
(2) Whatever power the the government may have with regard to 'harmful >>>> information' is limited by the 1st Amendment's prohibition on
government censorship.
The 1st Amendment doesn't say, "...shall make no law abridging the
freedom of speech, except if some government bureaucrat decides what >>>> you're saying is harmful".
(3) This restriction on government power doesn't even go away when
there's an emergency, as the Supreme Court has ruled:
"Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may
disregard the provisions of the Constitution in case of emergency." Ex >>>> parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)
"I'm interested in your view that the context does't change the 1st >>>>>> Amendment principles," she said. "I understood our 1st Amendment >>>>>> jurisprudence to require heightened scrutiny of government
restrictions of speech, but not necessarily a total prohibition when >>>>>> you're talking about a compelling interest of the government to
ensure, for example, that the public has accurate information in the >>>>>> context of a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic."
Try telling kids to eat Tide Pods because they're good for them and >>>>> see where it gets you.
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.)
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.
You're 0 for 2 on this one, Shit-Shoes. Wanna go for the hat trick?
He hasn't given a citation, has he? Last I checked, as of Feb 2024, 2
cases were still before the court.
No decision I've seen yet. But, Thanny doesn't need citations. He just
makes it up these days.
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:
You're comparing the text of an amendment to 200+ years of SupremeNope, it was perfectly apt, and nothing you cited changed that.
Court jurisprudence interpreting an amendment.
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.
No amendment is above being regulated. Period.
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. 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.
Bullshit.
On 3/22/24 4:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <utjpj2$2stl7$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/21/24 1:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <uthiiv$297th$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/20/24 2:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <uteuu6$1i449$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:You support the guy who wants the Constitution terminated.
On 3/19/24 10:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
WTF? What country do you think this is, Ketanji?
The Bill of Rights wasn't written to restrain WE THE PEOPLE.
It was written to restrain THE GOVERNMENT.
Jesus H. Christ, what a fucking MAGA Moron...
LOL! So according to Effa, advocating for one of the fundamental
liberties guaranteed under our Constitution-- a liberty unique to the >>>>> United States in all of human history-- makes one a moron now.
Looks like Effa and Katanji are birds of a feather. One might be
tempted to say they're fellow travelers.
Lie.
You only give a shit about the law and the Constitution if it upsets >>>> the libs.
Lie.
The fact that I'm giving a shit about it in this very thread proves your >>> lie. Unless, that is, you're saying "the libs" are now the
pro-censorship party in the United States and any attempt to prevent
government censorship "upsets the libs".
Is that what you're saying, Shit-Shoes?
How many libs have banned books compared to Moms for Liberty?
Missouri Republican candidate torches LGBTQ-inclusive books in viral
video Valentina Gomez, who is running for Missouri secretary of state, lit two
books on fire, including an LGBTQ guide for teens and a sex education
book.
You're not even a good fucking liar any more.
GOP Tennessee lawmaker suggests burning inappropriate books.
In the first half of the 2022–23 school year, PEN America, the free
speech organization, tracked nearly 1,500 book bans nationwide, affecting 874
unique titles. Books centering on people of color and LGBTQ+ characters >>> have been disproportionately targeted.
Them's you good ol' boys rite thar!
Subject: Re: "All-Inclusive" Bookstore Co-Founded By RuPaul Yanks Conservative Titles Following Backlash
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 14:28:40 -0700
In article <usp3jm$666q$5@dont-email.me>,
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
An online bookstore that advertised itself as being committed to sharing >> ideas, even those which are deemed controversial, has removed titles from >> conservative authors amid backlash.
Television host and activist RuPaul is a co-founder of the "all-inclusive" >> online bookstore Allstora, according to National Review. He started the
online store with LGBTQ advocate and author Eric Cervini and drag
performer Adam Powell.
The site advertised that they would carry titles from authors of all
points of view, and books for sale on the site initially ranged from Adolf >> Hitler's "Mein Kamp"" to the graphic, controversial coming-of-age book "Gender
Queer".
"We're a marketplace for all books and all stories, with a focus on
elevating marginalized voices," the site originally touted, according to NR.
"You may find books you disagree with," a pop-up ad warned, while the FAQ page
said, "Allstora has made the decision to carry all books" and "censorship of any
book, perspective, or story is incompatible with the survival of
democracy."
However, left-wing activists were outraged that Allstora offered titles by >> Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Matt Walsh, Riley Gaines, and Libs of TikTok
founder Chaya Raichik, among others. At first, the website's founders attempted
to diffuse tension by promising to create "a community-led flagging system >> for titles that are contrary to our core values and donating all proceeds >> from these titles to fight book bans," National Review noted.
But that wasn't enough. After three days of critics railing against
Allstora for selling "homophobic', "transphobic", "anti-woke", and "Nazi" books,
the founders relented and removed all free speech messaging from the page. >> Many works by conservative authors were removed from the page, while some >> other titles remained available.
Just goes to show you how downright hypocritical leftists are when they screech about "Republican book bans".
They'll ban a book in the blink of an eye if it doesn't meet their ideological rigor.
That's interesting, when in recorded history has that ever happened you
lying piece of shit?
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:
You're comparing the text of an amendment to 200+ years of SupremeNope, it was perfectly apt, and nothing you cited changed that.
Court jurisprudence interpreting an amendment.
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.
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:In other words the "reductio ad absurdem" argument where one defeats
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.
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.
FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/22/24 4:13 PM, trotsky wrote:
On 3/21/24 12:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/20/24 2:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/19/24 10:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Jackson said a "once-in-a-lifetime pandemic" or other emergencies >>>>>>>>would provide grounds for the government to censor social media posts >>>>>>>>that are misinformative.
The government has the power and, indeed the right to make sure that >>>>>>>harmful information doesn't get to the public.
(1) The government has no rights. Only citizens have rights. Government >>>>>>only has powers granted to it by the citizens.
(2) Whatever power the the government may have with regard to 'harmful >>>>>>information' is limited by the 1st Amendment's prohibition on >>>>>>government censorship.
The 1st Amendment doesn't say, "...shall make no law abridging the >>>>>>freedom of speech, except if some government bureaucrat decides what >>>>>>you're saying is harmful".
(3) This restriction on government power doesn't even go away when >>>>>>there's an emergency, as the Supreme Court has ruled:
"Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may >>>>>>disregard the provisions of the Constitution in case of emergency." Ex >>>>>>parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)
"I'm interested in your view that the context does't change the 1st >>>>>>>>Amendment principles," she said. "I understood our 1st Amendment >>>>>>>>jurisprudence to require heightened scrutiny of government >>>>>>>>restrictions of speech, but not necessarily a total prohibition when >>>>>>>>you're talking about a compelling interest of the government to >>>>>>>>ensure, for example, that the public has accurate information in the >>>>>>>>context of a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic."
Try telling kids to eat Tide Pods because they're good for them and >>>>>>>see where it gets you.
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.
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.
You're 0 for 2 on this one, Shit-Shoes. Wanna go for the hat trick?
He hasn't given a citation, has he? Last I checked, as of Feb 2024, 2
cases were still before the court.
No decision I've seen yet. But, Thanny doesn't need citations. He just >>makes it up these days.
You can't stop lying, can you, Shit-Shoes? I literally gave you
citations to two different Supreme Court cases in this thread alone.
You're the one who makes shit up (like "only employees of big legacy
media corporations are covered by the Free Press Clause") with no
citations to back it up, despite boldly proclaiming in the past that you >never post anything without a citation to back it up.
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.
On 3/22/24 4:18 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 22, 2024 at 4:22:34 AM PDT, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/21/24 1:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <uthibv$29328$7@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> >>> wrote:
And the press is a protected institution. You're not the press.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.)
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.
You're 0 for 2 on this one, Shit-Shoes. Wanna go for the hat trick?
Read the Espionage act fuckwad?
Don't need to.
That's obvious. You just make it up... of course you don't need to read.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/22/24 4:13 PM, trotsky wrote:
On 3/21/24 12:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/20/24 2:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/19/24 10:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Jackson said a "once-in-a-lifetime pandemic" or other emergencies >>>>>>>>would provide grounds for the government to censor social media posts >>>>>>>>that are misinformative.
The government has the power and, indeed the right to make sure that >>>>>>>harmful information doesn't get to the public.
(1) The government has no rights. Only citizens have rights. Government >>>>>>only has powers granted to it by the citizens.
(2) Whatever power the the government may have with regard to 'harmful >>>>>>information' is limited by the 1st Amendment's prohibition on >>>>>>government censorship.
The 1st Amendment doesn't say, "...shall make no law abridging the >>>>>>freedom of speech, except if some government bureaucrat decides what >>>>>>you're saying is harmful".
(3) This restriction on government power doesn't even go away when >>>>>>there's an emergency, as the Supreme Court has ruled:
"Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may >>>>>>disregard the provisions of the Constitution in case of emergency." Ex >>>>>>parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)
"I'm interested in your view that the context does't change the 1st >>>>>>>>Amendment principles," she said. "I understood our 1st Amendment >>>>>>>>jurisprudence to require heightened scrutiny of government >>>>>>>>restrictions of speech, but not necessarily a total prohibition when >>>>>>>>you're talking about a compelling interest of the government to >>>>>>>>ensure, for example, that the public has accurate information in the >>>>>>>>context of a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic."
Try telling kids to eat Tide Pods because they're good for them and >>>>>>>see where it gets you.
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.
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.
You're 0 for 2 on this one, Shit-Shoes. Wanna go for the hat trick?
He hasn't given a citation, has he? Last I checked, as of Feb 2024, 2 >>cases were still before the court.
No decision I've seen yet. But, Thanny doesn't need citations. He just >>makes it up these days.
You can't stop lying, can you, Shit-Shoes? I literally gave you
citations to two different Supreme Court cases in this thread alone.
You're the one who makes shit up (like "only employees of big legacy
media corporations are covered by the Free Press Clause") with no
citations to back it up, despite boldly proclaiming in the past that you >never post anything without a citation to back it up.
The civil right protecting the liberty of freedom of the press protects
any publisher. "Publishing" includes all aspects of the process of communication: putting it into a fixed form, printing or copying it or reproducing it electronically or photographically if it's not literally
on paper, and then distributing it to its intended audience.
The government cannot interfere in any aspect without infringing upon
this liberty with civil rights protection. For instance, it cannot say
that it's alright to mass produce a newspaper but making it illegal to
sell or distribute it.
If you are the publisher, then you are protected from censorship. There
is no limitation on which publishers are protected in the Constitution.
How did Fred Phelps not learn this in elementary school?
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/22/24 4:13 PM, trotsky wrote:
On 3/21/24 12:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/20/24 2:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/19/24 10:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Jackson said a "once-in-a-lifetime pandemic" or other >>>>>>>>>>emergencies would provide grounds for the government to censor >>>>>>>>>>social media posts that are misinformative.
The government has the power and, indeed the right to make sure that >>>>>>>>>harmful information doesn't get to the public.
(1) The government has no rights. Only citizens have rights. Government >>>>>>>>only has powers granted to it by the citizens.
(2) Whatever power the the government may have with regard to 'harmful >>>>>>>>information' is limited by the 1st Amendment's prohibition on >>>>>>>>government censorship.
The 1st Amendment doesn't say, "...shall make no law abridging the >>>>>>>>freedom of speech, except if some government bureaucrat decides what >>>>>>>>you're saying is harmful".
(3) This restriction on government power doesn't even go away when >>>>>>>>there's an emergency, as the Supreme Court has ruled:
"Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may >>>>>>>>disregard the provisions of the Constitution in case of emergency." Ex >>>>>>>>parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)
"I'm interested in your view that the context does't change the 1st >>>>>>>>>>Amendment principles," she said. "I understood our 1st Amendment >>>>>>>>>>jurisprudence to require heightened scrutiny of government >>>>>>>>>>restrictions of speech, but not necessarily a total prohibition when >>>>>>>>>>you're talking about a compelling interest of the government to >>>>>>>>>>ensure, for example, that the public has accurate information in the >>>>>>>>>>context of a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic."
Try telling kids to eat Tide Pods because they're good for them and >>>>>>>>>see where it gets you.
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.
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.
You're 0 for 2 on this one, Shit-Shoes. Wanna go for the hat trick?
He hasn't given a citation, has he? Last I checked, as of Feb 2024, 2 >>>>cases were still before the court.
No decision I've seen yet. But, Thanny doesn't need citations. He just >>>>makes it up these days.
You can't stop lying, can you, Shit-Shoes? I literally gave you
citations to two different Supreme Court cases in this thread alone.
You're the one who makes shit up (like "only employees of big legacy >>>media corporations are covered by the Free Press Clause") with no >>>citations to back it up, despite boldly proclaiming in the past that you >>>never post anything without a citation to back it up.
The civil right protecting the liberty of freedom of the press protects
any publisher. "Publishing" includes all aspects of the process of >>communication: putting it into a fixed form, printing or copying it or >>reproducing it electronically or photographically if it's not literally
on paper, and then distributing it to its intended audience.
The government cannot interfere in any aspect without infringing upon
this liberty with civil rights protection. For instance, it cannot say
that it's alright to mass produce a newspaper but making it illegal to
sell or distribute it.
If you are the publisher, then you are protected from censorship. There
is no limitation on which publishers are protected in the Constitution.
How did Fred Phelps not learn this in elementary school?
He's also denying that Judicial Review exists now, too.
Dude's losing it.
In article <utms0i$3n6po$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
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:
You're comparing the text of an amendment to 200+ years of SupremeNope, it was perfectly apt, and nothing you cited changed that.
Court jurisprudence interpreting an amendment.
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.
What 'rules' have I cited here? If anyone has cited a 'rule', it's you, Shit-Shoes. ("No amendment is sacrosanct")
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/22/24 4:13 PM, trotsky wrote:
On 3/21/24 12:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/20/24 2:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/19/24 10:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Jackson said a "once-in-a-lifetime pandemic" or other >>>>>>>>>>emergencies would provide grounds for the government to censor >>>>>>>>>>social media posts that are misinformative.
The government has the power and, indeed the right to make sure that >>>>>>>>>harmful information doesn't get to the public.
(1) The government has no rights. Only citizens have rights. >>>>>>>>Government
only has powers granted to it by the citizens.
(2) Whatever power the the government may have with regard to >>>>>>>>'harmful
information' is limited by the 1st Amendment's prohibition on >>>>>>>>government censorship.
The 1st Amendment doesn't say, "...shall make no law abridging the >>>>>>>>freedom of speech, except if some government bureaucrat decides what >>>>>>>>you're saying is harmful".
(3) This restriction on government power doesn't even go away when >>>>>>>>there's an emergency, as the Supreme Court has ruled:
"Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may >>>>>>>>disregard the provisions of the Constitution in case of emergency." >>>>>>>>Ex
parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)
"I'm interested in your view that the context does't change the 1st >>>>>>>>>>Amendment principles," she said. "I understood our 1st Amendment >>>>>>>>>>jurisprudence to require heightened scrutiny of government >>>>>>>>>>restrictions of speech, but not necessarily a total prohibition >>>>>>>>>>when
you're talking about a compelling interest of the government to >>>>>>>>>>ensure, for example, that the public has accurate information in >>>>>>>>>>the
context of a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic."
Try telling kids to eat Tide Pods because they're good for them and >>>>>>>>>see where it gets you.
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.
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.
You're 0 for 2 on this one, Shit-Shoes. Wanna go for the hat trick?
He hasn't given a citation, has he? Last I checked, as of Feb 2024, 2 >>>>cases were still before the court.
No decision I've seen yet. But, Thanny doesn't need citations. He just >>>>makes it up these days.
You can't stop lying, can you, Shit-Shoes? I literally gave you >>>citations to two different Supreme Court cases in this thread alone.
You're the one who makes shit up (like "only employees of big legacy >>>media corporations are covered by the Free Press Clause") with no >>>citations to back it up, despite boldly proclaiming in the past that you >>>never post anything without a citation to back it up.
The civil right protecting the liberty of freedom of the press protects >>any publisher. "Publishing" includes all aspects of the process of >>communication: putting it into a fixed form, printing or copying it or >>reproducing it electronically or photographically if it's not literally >>on paper, and then distributing it to its intended audience.
The government cannot interfere in any aspect without infringing upon >>this liberty with civil rights protection. For instance, it cannot say >>that it's alright to mass produce a newspaper but making it illegal to >>sell or distribute it.
If you are the publisher, then you are protected from censorship. There >>is no limitation on which publishers are protected in the Constitution.
How did Fred Phelps not learn this in elementary school?
He's also denying that Judicial Review exists now, too.
Dude's losing it.
I think I was taught this in elementary school too. American history
class hits all the highlights but doesn't go into too much detail.
In article <utmrq9$3n3jl$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
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:
No amendment is above being regulated. Period.You're comparing the text of an amendment to 200+ years of SupremeNope, it was perfectly apt, and nothing you cited changed that.
Court jurisprudence interpreting an amendment.
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.
So describe how the 13th Amendment might be regulated beyond the plain
text of the Constitution, Shit-Shoes.
Thrill us with your acumen.
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:In other words the "reductio ad absurdem" argument where one defeats
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.
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.
On 3/23/2024 1:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <utms0i$3n6po$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
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:
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.
What 'rules' have I cited here? If anyone has cited a 'rule', it's you,
Shit-Shoes. ("No amendment is sacrosanct")
"No amendment is sacrosanct" isn't a rule, it's a tautology.
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 1:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <utmrq9$3n3jl$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
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:
No amendment is above being regulated. Period.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.
So describe how the 13th Amendment might be regulated beyond the plain
text of the Constitution, Shit-Shoes.
Thrill us with your acumen.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation."
...could be amended to...
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for *CAPITAL* crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this
article by appropriate legislation."
...or, as the straw-man you might be hoping for, to...
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for *NEGRO ANCESTRY* whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this
article by appropriate legislation."
Any amendment can be amended or repealed completely. That's not what we're talking about. The issue is how a Court could interpret Amendment XIII in
any way that wouldn't allow for the very thing it proscribes.
On 3/23/2024 7:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 1:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <utmrq9$3n3jl$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
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:
No amendment is above being regulated. Period.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.
So describe how the 13th Amendment might be regulated beyond the plain >>> text of the Constitution, Shit-Shoes.
Thrill us with your acumen.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation."
...could be amended to...
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for *CAPITAL* crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this
article by appropriate legislation."
...or, as the straw-man you might be hoping for, to...
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for *NEGRO ANCESTRY* whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this
article by appropriate legislation."
Any amendment can be amended or repealed completely. That's not what we're talking about. The issue is how a Court could interpret Amendment XIII in any way that wouldn't allow for the very thing it proscribes.
Yes, ANY amendment can be amended. What else are you imagining Scalia
to be saying?
On 3/23/2024 1:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
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: >>>>>In other words the "reductio ad absurdem" argument where one defeats
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.
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.
Well, for example, the original...
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation."
...could be amended to...
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for *CAPITAL* crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this
article by appropriate legislation."
...or, if you're longing for a diversionary straw-man, to...
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for *NEGRO ANCESTRY* whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this
article by appropriate legislation."
"SOME amendments are sacrosanct", a theologism, is what's absurd here.
The civil right protecting the liberty of freedom of the press protects
any publisher. "Publishing" includes all aspects of the process of >communication: putting it into a fixed form, printing or copying it or >reproducing it electronically or photographically if it's not literally
on paper, and then distributing it to its intended audience.
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 1:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
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: >>>>>>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.
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.
"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.
Well, for example, the original...
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation."
...could be amended to...
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for *CAPITAL* crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this
article by appropriate legislation."
...or, if you're longing for a diversionary straw-man, to...
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for *NEGRO ANCESTRY* whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this
article by appropriate legislation."
Did you have a stroke?
On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 11:26:06 -0400, moviePig <never@nothere.com>
wrote:
"SOME amendments are sacrosanct", a theologism, is what's absurd here.
You don't have to be religious to believe Washington has sacred cows -
and plenty of them!
In article <17bf9340d541bf3f$40$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 7:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 1:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <utmrq9$3n3jl$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
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:
No amendment is above being regulated. Period.No, I don't. Every time you bring that up, I ask you whether you think >>>>>>> thatYou'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. >>>>>>>
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.
So describe how the 13th Amendment might be regulated beyond the plain >>>>> text of the Constitution, Shit-Shoes.
Thrill us with your acumen.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment >>>> for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist >>>> within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation."
...could be amended to...
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment >>>> for *CAPITAL* crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this
article by appropriate legislation."
...or, as the straw-man you might be hoping for, to...
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment >>>> for *NEGRO ANCESTRY* whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, >>>> shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this
article by appropriate legislation."
Any amendment can be amended or repealed completely. That's not what we're >>> talking about. The issue is how a Court could interpret Amendment XIII in >>> any way that wouldn't allow for the very thing it proscribes.
Yes, ANY amendment can be amended. What else are you imagining Scalia
to be saying?
Scalia said regulation. He wasn't talking about the amendment process,
since that's self-explanatory and obvious and hardly needed repeating.
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 articleNope, it was perfectly apt, and nothing you cited changed that.
<17bede76861e0687$3579$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/21/2024 2:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:Analogy fail.
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:
A key difference being that the press is assumed to be aAnd the press is a protected institution. You're not the press. >>>>>>>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.)
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...
You're comparing the text of an amendment to 200+ years of Supreme
Court
jurisprudence interpreting an amendment.
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.
On 3/22/24 4:13 PM, trotsky wrote:
On 3/21/24 12:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <uthibv$29328$7@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/20/24 2:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <utevar$1iacj$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 3/19/24 10:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
WTF? What country do you think this is, Ketanji?
The Bill of Rights wasn't written to restrain WE THE PEOPLE.
It was written to restrain THE GOVERNMENT.
Getting in the way of government censorship efforts is precisely >>>>>>> what the
1st Amendment was intended to do. It's a feature, not a bug. If the >>>>>>> government's attempts at censorship are hitting a brick wall
because of
the
1st Amendment, that's a sign everything's working as intended.
It's become stunningly apparent why Biden diversity-hired your
Marxist
ass.
-------------------
https://gazette.com/news/wex/ketanji-brown-jackson-concerned-first-amendme
nt
-is-hamstringing-government-from-censorship/article_5a732827-ef9a-56fd-a10
b-
aee7be8cb179.amp.html
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised concerns that >>>>>>> the 1st
Amendment may stand in the way of government censorship in unique >>>>>>> times.
"You seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself >>>>>>> in the
government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down >>>>>>> harmful
information," Jackson said. "So, can you help me? Because I'm really >>>>>>> worried about that because you've got the 1st Amendment operating >>>>>>> in an
environment of threatening circumstances, from the government's
perspective, and you're saying that the government can't interact >>>>>>> with
the source of those problems."
Aguiñaga said his view was that the government should intervene in >>>>>>> certain situations, but it has to do so by following the 1st
Amendment.
"Our position is not that the government can't interact with the >>>>>>> platforms there. They can and they should in certain circumstances >>>>>>> like that, that present such dangerous issues for society and
especially young people," Aguiñaga said in response. "But the way >>>>>>> they do that has to be in compliance with the 1st Amendment and I >>>>>>> think that means they can give them all the true information that >>>>>>> the platform needs and ask to amplify that."
Jackson said a "once-in-a-lifetime pandemic" or other emergencies >>>>>>> would
provide grounds for the government to censor social media posts
that are
misinformative.
And the press is a protected institution. You're not the press.The government has the power and, indeed the right to make sure that >>>>>> harmful information doesn't get to the public.
(1) The government has no rights. Only citizens have rights.
Government
only has powers granted to it by the citizens.
(2) Whatever power the the government may have with regard to 'harmful >>>>> information' is limited by the 1st Amendment's prohibition on
government
censorship.
The 1st Amendment doesn't say, "...shall make no law abridging the
freedom of speech, except if some government bureaucrat decides what >>>>> you're saying is harmful".
(3) This restriction on government power doesn't even go away when
there's an emergency, as the Supreme Court has ruled:
"Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may
disregard the provisions of the Constitution in case of
emergency." Ex
parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)
"I'm interested in your view that the context does't change the 1st >>>>>>> Amendment principles," she said. "I understood our 1st Amendment >>>>>>> jurisprudence to require heightened scrutiny of government
restrictions
of speech, but not necessarily a total prohibition when you're
talking
about a compelling interest of the government to ensure, for
example,
that the public has accurate information in the context of a
once-in-
a-lifetime pandemic."
Try telling kids to eat Tide Pods because they're good for them
and see
where it gets you.
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.)
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.
You're 0 for 2 on this one, Shit-Shoes. Wanna go for the hat trick?
So you're saying you represent a publication? Because when FPP says
you aren't the press, and you said but but but citizen media! you
failed to indicate which "citizen media" you're with. Ostensibly you
just said FPP was spot on then. P.S. You even more mind numbingly
stupid than usual here.
He hasn't given a citation, has he? Last I checked, as of Feb 2024, 2
cases were still before the court.
No decision I've seen yet. But, Thanny doesn't need citations. He just makes it up these days.
On 3/23/2024 11:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bf9340d541bf3f$40$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 7:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 1:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <utmrq9$3n3jl$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
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:
No amendment is above being regulated. Period.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 fromYou'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. >>>>>>>
voting (Amendment XV) and allow people to be owned as slaves
(Amendment XIII).
And that's when *you* go into a coma.
So describe how the 13th Amendment might be regulated beyond the plain >>>>> text of the Constitution, Shit-Shoes.
Thrill us with your acumen.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment >>>> for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist >>>> within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. >>>> Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation."
...could be amended to...
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment >>>> for *CAPITAL* crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, >>>> shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this
article by appropriate legislation."
...or, as the straw-man you might be hoping for, to...
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment >>>> for *NEGRO ANCESTRY* whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, >>>> shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this
article by appropriate legislation."
Any amendment can be amended or repealed completely. That's not what
we're
talking about. The issue is how a Court could interpret Amendment XIII in >>> any way that wouldn't allow for the very thing it proscribes.
Yes, ANY amendment can be amended. What else are you imagining Scalia
to be saying?
Scalia said regulation. He wasn't talking about the amendment process, since that's self-explanatory and obvious and hardly needed repeating.
The claim I've been supporting is "No amendment is sacrosanct".
On 3/24/2024 4:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bfc13b72bae17c$104$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 11:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bf9340d541bf3f$40$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 7:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 1:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <utmrq9$3n3jl$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
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:
No amendment is above being regulated. Period.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).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. >>>>>>>>>
And that's when *you* go into a coma.
So describe how the 13th Amendment might be regulated beyond the >>>>>>> plain text of the Constitution, Shit-Shoes.
Thrill us with your acumen.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment >>>>>> for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall >>>>>> exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this >>>>>> article by appropriate legislation."
...could be amended to...
Any amendment can be amended or repealed completely. That's not what >>>>> we're talking about. The issue is how a Court could interpret
Amendment XIII in any way that wouldn't allow for the very thing it >>>>> proscribes.
Yes, ANY amendment can be amended. What else are you imagining Scalia >>>> to be saying?
Scalia said regulation. He wasn't talking about the amendment process, >>> since that's self-explanatory and obvious and hardly needed repeating.
The claim I've been supporting is "No amendment is sacrosanct".
Right. He meant no amendment is free from encroachment by congressional
or judicial regulation.
I'm loath to declare what someone else meant, or to think that I know.
Regardless, it seems Scalia was talking specifically about the 2nd
Amendment ...
In article <17bfcfe9ea63d6e9$41977$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/24/2024 4:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bfc13b72bae17c$104$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 11:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bf9340d541bf3f$40$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>, >>>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 7:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 1:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <utmrq9$3n3jl$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
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:
No amendment is above being regulated. Period.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).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. >>>>>>>>>>>
And that's when *you* go into a coma.
So describe how the 13th Amendment might be regulated beyond the >>>>>>>>> plain text of the Constitution, Shit-Shoes.
Thrill us with your acumen.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment >>>>>>>> for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall >>>>>>>> exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this >>>>>>>> article by appropriate legislation."
...could be amended to...
The claim I've been supporting is "No amendment is sacrosanct".Any amendment can be amended or repealed completely. That's not what >>>>>>> we're talking about. The issue is how a Court could interpret
Amendment XIII in any way that wouldn't allow for the very thing it >>>>>>> proscribes.
Yes, ANY amendment can be amended. What else are you imagining Scalia >>>>>> to be saying?
Scalia said regulation. He wasn't talking about the amendment process, >>>>> since that's self-explanatory and obvious and hardly needed repeating. >>>>
Right. He meant no amendment is free from encroachment by congressional
or judicial regulation.
I'm loath to declare what someone else meant, or to think that I know.
Regardless, it seems Scalia was talking specifically about the 2nd
Amendment ...
Yes, the subject was the 2nd, but as Effa loves to parrot, he
specifically said no amendment, no freedom or right, was immune from
such limitation.
To which I say, give me an example of how the 13th Amendment can be legitimately limited by the Judicial Branch.
And that's when Effa goes radio silent and slips into one his comas.
In article <17bfc13b72bae17c$104$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 11:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bf9340d541bf3f$40$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 7:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 1:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <utmrq9$3n3jl$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
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:
No amendment is above being regulated. Period.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).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. >>>>>>>>>
And that's when *you* go into a coma.
So describe how the 13th Amendment might be regulated beyond the plain >>>>>>> text of the Constitution, Shit-Shoes.
Thrill us with your acumen.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment >>>>>> for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist >>>>>> within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. >>>>>> Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation."
...could be amended to...
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment >>>>>> for *CAPITAL* crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, >>>>>> shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their >>>>>> jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this >>>>>> article by appropriate legislation."
...or, as the straw-man you might be hoping for, to...
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment >>>>>> for *NEGRO ANCESTRY* whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, >>>>>> shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their >>>>>> jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this >>>>>> article by appropriate legislation."
Any amendment can be amended or repealed completely. That's not what >>>>> we're
talking about. The issue is how a Court could interpret Amendment XIII in >>>>> any way that wouldn't allow for the very thing it proscribes.
Yes, ANY amendment can be amended. What else are you imagining Scalia
to be saying?
Scalia said regulation. He wasn't talking about the amendment process,
since that's self-explanatory and obvious and hardly needed repeating.
The claim I've been supporting is "No amendment is sacrosanct".
Right. He meant no amendment is free from encroachment by congressional
or judicial regulation.
On 3/24/2024 6:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bfcfe9ea63d6e9$41977$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/24/2024 4:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bfc13b72bae17c$104$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>, >>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 11:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bf9340d541bf3f$40$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>, >>>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 7:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 1:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <utmrq9$3n3jl$4@dont-email.me>, FPP
<fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
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:
No amendment is above being regulated. Period.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).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. >>>>>>>>>>>
And that's when *you* go into a coma.
So describe how the 13th Amendment might be regulated beyond the >>>>>>>>> plain text of the Constitution, Shit-Shoes.
Thrill us with your acumen.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment >>>>>>>> for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall >>>>>>>> exist within the United States, or any place subject to their >>>>>>>> jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this >>>>>>>> article by appropriate legislation."
...could be amended to...
The claim I've been supporting is "No amendment is sacrosanct".Any amendment can be amended or repealed completely. That's not what >>>>>>> we're talking about. The issue is how a Court could interpret
Amendment XIII in any way that wouldn't allow for the very thing it >>>>>>> proscribes.
Yes, ANY amendment can be amended. What else are you imagining Scalia >>>>>> to be saying?
Scalia said regulation. He wasn't talking about the amendment process, >>>>> since that's self-explanatory and obvious and hardly needed repeating. >>>>
Right. He meant no amendment is free from encroachment by congressional >>> or judicial regulation.
I'm loath to declare what someone else meant, or to think that I know.
Regardless, it seems Scalia was talking specifically about the 2nd
Amendment ...
Yes, the subject was the 2nd, but as Effa loves to parrot, he
specifically said no amendment, no freedom or right, was immune from
such limitation.
To which I say, give me an example of how the 13th Amendment can be legitimately limited by the Judicial Branch.
And that's when Effa goes radio silent and slips into one his comas.
To interpret is to limit
In article <17bfd2ebcc6f342b$110$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/24/2024 6:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bfcfe9ea63d6e9$41977$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/24/2024 4:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bfc13b72bae17c$104$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>, >>>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 11:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bf9340d541bf3f$40$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>, >>>>>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 7:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 1:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <utmrq9$3n3jl$4@dont-email.me>, FPP
<fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
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:
No amendment is above being regulated. Period.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).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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
And that's when *you* go into a coma.
So describe how the 13th Amendment might be regulated beyond the >>>>>>>>>>> plain text of the Constitution, Shit-Shoes.
Thrill us with your acumen.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment >>>>>>>>>> for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall >>>>>>>>>> exist within the United States, or any place subject to their >>>>>>>>>> jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this >>>>>>>>>> article by appropriate legislation."
...could be amended to...
The claim I've been supporting is "No amendment is sacrosanct".Any amendment can be amended or repealed completely. That's not what >>>>>>>>> we're talking about. The issue is how a Court could interpret >>>>>>>>> Amendment XIII in any way that wouldn't allow for the very thing it >>>>>>>>> proscribes.
Yes, ANY amendment can be amended. What else are you imagining Scalia >>>>>>>> to be saying?
Scalia said regulation. He wasn't talking about the amendment process, >>>>>>> since that's self-explanatory and obvious and hardly needed repeating. >>>>>>
Right. He meant no amendment is free from encroachment by congressional >>>>> or judicial regulation.
I'm loath to declare what someone else meant, or to think that I know. >>>>
Regardless, it seems Scalia was talking specifically about the 2nd
Amendment ...
Yes, the subject was the 2nd, but as Effa loves to parrot, he
specifically said no amendment, no freedom or right, was immune from
such limitation.
To which I say, give me an example of how the 13th Amendment can be
legitimately limited by the Judicial Branch.
And that's when Effa goes radio silent and slips into one his comas.
To interpret is to limit
Nope. An amendment can easily be interpreted to give *more* freedom than
the plain text indicates, which is what the gun grabbers claim the Court
has done with the 2nd: that they've interpreted it to mean an individual right of gun ownership rather than the limited right of militia members
to own guns.
On 3/24/2024 6:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bfd2ebcc6f342b$110$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/24/2024 6:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bfcfe9ea63d6e9$41977$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com>, >>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/24/2024 4:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bfc13b72bae17c$104$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>, >>>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 11:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bf9340d541bf3f$40$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>, >>>>>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 7:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 1:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <utmrq9$3n3jl$4@dont-email.me>, FPP
<fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
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:
No amendment is above being regulated. Period.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.
So describe how the 13th Amendment might be regulated beyond the >>>>>>>>>>> plain text of the Constitution, Shit-Shoes.
Thrill us with your acumen.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment >>>>>>>>>> for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall >>>>>>>>>> exist within the United States, or any place subject to their >>>>>>>>>> jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this >>>>>>>>>> article by appropriate legislation."
...could be amended to...
Any amendment can be amended or repealed completely. That's not >>>>>>>>> what we're talking about. The issue is how a Court could interpret >>>>>>>>> Amendment XIII in any way that wouldn't allow for the very thing it >>>>>>>>> proscribes.
Yes, ANY amendment can be amended. What else are you imagining >>>>>>>> Scalia to be saying?
Scalia said regulation. He wasn't talking about the amendment
process, since that's self-explanatory and obvious and hardly needed >>>>>>> repeating.
The claim I've been supporting is "No amendment is sacrosanct".
Right. He meant no amendment is free from encroachment by congressional >>>>> or judicial regulation.
I'm loath to declare what someone else meant, or to think that I know. >>>>
Regardless, it seems Scalia was talking specifically about the 2nd
Amendment ...
Yes, the subject was the 2nd, but as Effa loves to parrot, he
specifically said no amendment, no freedom or right, was immune from
such limitation.
To which I say, give me an example of how the 13th Amendment can be
legitimately limited by the Judicial Branch.
And that's when Effa goes radio silent and slips into one his comas.
To interpret is to limit
Nope. An amendment can easily be interpreted to give *more* freedom than the plain text indicates, which is what the gun grabbers claim the Court has done with the 2nd: that they've interpreted it to mean an individual right of gun ownership rather than the limited right of militia members
to own guns.
Relaxing a limit is still setting one.
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
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.)
In article <17bf9340d541bf3f$40$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 7:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 1:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <utmrq9$3n3jl$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
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:
No amendment is above being regulated. Period.No, I don't. Every time you bring that up, I ask you whether you think >>>>>>> thatYou'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. >>>>>>>
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.
So describe how the 13th Amendment might be regulated beyond the plain >>>>> text of the Constitution, Shit-Shoes.
Thrill us with your acumen.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment >>>> for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist >>>> within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation."
...could be amended to...
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment >>>> for *CAPITAL* crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this
article by appropriate legislation."
...or, as the straw-man you might be hoping for, to...
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment >>>> for *NEGRO ANCESTRY* whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, >>>> shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this
article by appropriate legislation."
Any amendment can be amended or repealed completely. That's not what we're >>> talking about. The issue is how a Court could interpret Amendment XIII in >>> any way that wouldn't allow for the very thing it proscribes.
Yes, ANY amendment can be amended. What else are you imagining Scalia
to be saying?
Scalia said regulation.
since that's self-explanatory and obvious and hardly needed repeating.
In article <utn9mj$3qjmj$1@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/22/24 4:13 PM, trotsky wrote:
On 3/21/24 12:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/20/24 2:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/19/24 10:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Jackson said a "once-in-a-lifetime pandemic" or other
emergencies would provide grounds for the government to censor >>>>>>>>>>>> social media posts that are misinformative.
The government has the power and, indeed the right to make sure that
harmful information doesn't get to the public.
(1) The government has no rights. Only citizens have rights. >>>>>>>>>> Government
only has powers granted to it by the citizens.
(2) Whatever power the the government may have with regard to >>>>>>>>>> 'harmful
information' is limited by the 1st Amendment's prohibition on >>>>>>>>>> government censorship.
The 1st Amendment doesn't say, "...shall make no law abridging the >>>>>>>>>> freedom of speech, except if some government bureaucrat decides what >>>>>>>>>> you're saying is harmful".
(3) This restriction on government power doesn't even go away when >>>>>>>>>> there's an emergency, as the Supreme Court has ruled:
"Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may >>>>>>>>>> disregard the provisions of the Constitution in case of emergency." >>>>>>>>>> Ex
parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)
"I'm interested in your view that the context does't change the 1st
Amendment principles," she said. "I understood our 1st Amendment >>>>>>>>>>>> jurisprudence to require heightened scrutiny of government >>>>>>>>>>>> restrictions of speech, but not necessarily a total prohibition >>>>>>>>>>>> when
you're talking about a compelling interest of the government to >>>>>>>>>>>> ensure, for example, that the public has accurate information in >>>>>>>>>>>> the
context of a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic."
Try telling kids to eat Tide Pods because they're good for them and >>>>>>>>>>> see where it gets you.
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.
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.
You're 0 for 2 on this one, Shit-Shoes. Wanna go for the hat trick?
He hasn't given a citation, has he? Last I checked, as of Feb 2024, 2 >>>>>> cases were still before the court.
No decision I've seen yet. But, Thanny doesn't need citations. He just >>>>>> makes it up these days.
You can't stop lying, can you, Shit-Shoes? I literally gave you
citations to two different Supreme Court cases in this thread alone.
You're the one who makes shit up (like "only employees of big legacy >>>>> media corporations are covered by the Free Press Clause") with no
citations to back it up, despite boldly proclaiming in the past that you >>>>> never post anything without a citation to back it up.
The civil right protecting the liberty of freedom of the press protects >>>> any publisher. "Publishing" includes all aspects of the process of
communication: putting it into a fixed form, printing or copying it or >>>> reproducing it electronically or photographically if it's not literally >>>> on paper, and then distributing it to its intended audience.
The government cannot interfere in any aspect without infringing upon
this liberty with civil rights protection. For instance, it cannot say >>>> that it's alright to mass produce a newspaper but making it illegal to >>>> sell or distribute it.
If you are the publisher, then you are protected from censorship. There >>>> is no limitation on which publishers are protected in the Constitution.
How did Fred Phelps not learn this in elementary school?
He's also denying that Judicial Review exists now, too.
Dude's losing it.
I think I was taught this in elementary school too. American history
class hits all the highlights but doesn't go into too much detail.
Probably not anymore. All that has been jettisoned in favor of teaching
about the 87 genders and how to smash capitalism.
In article <17bfe17f860291f4$112$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/24/2024 6:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bfd2ebcc6f342b$110$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/24/2024 6:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bfcfe9ea63d6e9$41977$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com>, >>>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/24/2024 4:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bfc13b72bae17c$104$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>, >>>>>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 11:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bf9340d541bf3f$40$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>, >>>>>>>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 7:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 1:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <utmrq9$3n3jl$4@dont-email.me>, FPP
<fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
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:
No amendment is above being regulated. Period.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.
So describe how the 13th Amendment might be regulated beyond the >>>>>>>>>>>>> plain text of the Constitution, Shit-Shoes.
Thrill us with your acumen.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment >>>>>>>>>>>> for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall >>>>>>>>>>>> exist within the United States, or any place subject to their >>>>>>>>>>>> jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this >>>>>>>>>>>> article by appropriate legislation."
...could be amended to...
Right. He meant no amendment is free from encroachment by congressional >>>>>>> or judicial regulation.Any amendment can be amended or repealed completely. That's not >>>>>>>>>>> what we're talking about. The issue is how a Court could interpret >>>>>>>>>>> Amendment XIII in any way that wouldn't allow for the very thing it >>>>>>>>>>> proscribes.
Yes, ANY amendment can be amended. What else are you imagining >>>>>>>>>> Scalia to be saying?
Scalia said regulation. He wasn't talking about the amendment >>>>>>>>> process, since that's self-explanatory and obvious and hardly needed >>>>>>>>> repeating.
The claim I've been supporting is "No amendment is sacrosanct". >>>>>>>
I'm loath to declare what someone else meant, or to think that I know. >>>>>>
Regardless, it seems Scalia was talking specifically about the 2nd >>>>>> Amendment ...
Yes, the subject was the 2nd, but as Effa loves to parrot, he
specifically said no amendment, no freedom or right, was immune from >>>>> such limitation.
To which I say, give me an example of how the 13th Amendment can be
legitimately limited by the Judicial Branch.
And that's when Effa goes radio silent and slips into one his comas.
To interpret is to limit
Nope. An amendment can easily be interpreted to give *more* freedom than >>> the plain text indicates, which is what the gun grabbers claim the Court >>> has done with the 2nd: that they've interpreted it to mean an individual >>> right of gun ownership rather than the limited right of militia members
to own guns.
Relaxing a limit is still setting one.
Nope.
If I write a law that says, "Everyone's allowed to own guns except
moviePig" and the Court comes along and says that's an illegal bill of attainder and strikes the last two words, the Court hasn't set a limit.
It has removed one.
On 3/25/2024 1:10 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bfe17f860291f4$112$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/24/2024 6:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bfd2ebcc6f342b$110$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>, >>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/24/2024 6:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bfcfe9ea63d6e9$41977$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com>, >>>>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:To interpret is to limit
On 3/24/2024 4:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bfc13b72bae17c$104$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>, >>>>>>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 11:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bf9340d541bf3f$40$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 7:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 1:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <utmrq9$3n3jl$4@dont-email.me>, FPP
<fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
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:
No amendment is above being regulated. Period.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.
So describe how the 13th Amendment might be regulated beyond the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> plain text of the Constitution, Shit-Shoes.
Thrill us with your acumen.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall >>>>>>>>>>>>> exist within the United States, or any place subject to their >>>>>>>>>>>>> jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this
article by appropriate legislation."
...could be amended to...
Right. He meant no amendment is free from encroachment by congressionalAny amendment can be amended or repealed completely. That's not >>>>>>>>>>>> what we're talking about. The issue is how a Court could interpret >>>>>>>>>>>> Amendment XIII in any way that wouldn't allow for the very thing it
proscribes.
Yes, ANY amendment can be amended. What else are you imagining >>>>>>>>>>> Scalia to be saying?
Scalia said regulation. He wasn't talking about the amendment >>>>>>>>>> process, since that's self-explanatory and obvious and hardly needed >>>>>>>>>> repeating.
The claim I've been supporting is "No amendment is sacrosanct". >>>>>>>>
or judicial regulation.
I'm loath to declare what someone else meant, or to think that I know. >>>>>>>
Regardless, it seems Scalia was talking specifically about the 2nd >>>>>>> Amendment ...
Yes, the subject was the 2nd, but as Effa loves to parrot, he
specifically said no amendment, no freedom or right, was immune from >>>>>> such limitation.
To which I say, give me an example of how the 13th Amendment can be >>>>>> legitimately limited by the Judicial Branch.
And that's when Effa goes radio silent and slips into one his comas. >>>>>
Nope. An amendment can easily be interpreted to give *more* freedom than >>>> the plain text indicates, which is what the gun grabbers claim the Court >>>> has done with the 2nd: that they've interpreted it to mean an individual >>>> right of gun ownership rather than the limited right of militia members >>>> to own guns.
Relaxing a limit is still setting one.
Nope.
If I write a law that says, "Everyone's allowed to own guns except
moviePig" and the Court comes along and says that's an illegal bill of
attainder and strikes the last two words, the Court hasn't set a limit.
It has removed one.
That's Zen word games.
Is a limit of zero (or infinity) a limit? And,
is an abrogation an interpretation?
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/25/2024 1:10 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bfe17f860291f4$112$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/24/2024 6:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bfd2ebcc6f342b$110$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>, >>>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/24/2024 6:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bfcfe9ea63d6e9$41977$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com>, >>>>>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:To interpret is to limit
On 3/24/2024 4:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bfc13b72bae17c$104$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 11:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bf9340d541bf3f$40$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 7:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 1:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <utmrq9$3n3jl$4@dont-email.me>, FPP
<fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
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:
No amendment is above being regulated. Period.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.
So describe how the 13th Amendment might be regulated beyond the
plain text of the Constitution, Shit-Shoes.
Thrill us with your acumen.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall
exist within the United States, or any place subject to their >>>>>>>>>>>>>> jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this
article by appropriate legislation."
...could be amended to...
Right. He meant no amendment is free from encroachment by congressionalAny amendment can be amended or repealed completely. That's not >>>>>>>>>>>>> what we're talking about. The issue is how a Court could interpret
Amendment XIII in any way that wouldn't allow for the very thing it
proscribes.
Yes, ANY amendment can be amended. What else are you imagining >>>>>>>>>>>> Scalia to be saying?
Scalia said regulation. He wasn't talking about the amendment >>>>>>>>>>> process, since that's self-explanatory and obvious and hardly needed
repeating.
The claim I've been supporting is "No amendment is sacrosanct". >>>>>>>>>
or judicial regulation.
I'm loath to declare what someone else meant, or to think that I know. >>>>>>>>
Regardless, it seems Scalia was talking specifically about the 2nd >>>>>>>> Amendment ...
Yes, the subject was the 2nd, but as Effa loves to parrot, he
specifically said no amendment, no freedom or right, was immune from >>>>>>> such limitation.
To which I say, give me an example of how the 13th Amendment can be >>>>>>> legitimately limited by the Judicial Branch.
And that's when Effa goes radio silent and slips into one his comas. >>>>>>
Nope. An amendment can easily be interpreted to give *more* freedom than >>>>> the plain text indicates, which is what the gun grabbers claim the Court >>>>> has done with the 2nd: that they've interpreted it to mean an individual >>>>> right of gun ownership rather than the limited right of militia members >>>>> to own guns.
Relaxing a limit is still setting one.
Nope.
If I write a law that says, "Everyone's allowed to own guns except
moviePig" and the Court comes along and says that's an illegal bill of
attainder and strikes the last two words, the Court hasn't set a limit.
It has removed one.
That's Zen word games.
You've got a lot of balls to complain about word games.
Is a limit of zero (or infinity) a limit? And,
is an abrogation an interpretation?
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 1:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
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).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.
And that's when *you* go into a coma.
"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.
Well, for example, the original...
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation."
...could be amended to...
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for *CAPITAL* crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this
article by appropriate legislation."
...or, if you're longing for a diversionary straw-man, to...
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for *NEGRO ANCESTRY* whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this
article by appropriate legislation."
Did you have a stroke?
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.
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/25/2024 1:10 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bfe17f860291f4$112$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/24/2024 6:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bfd2ebcc6f342b$110$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>, >>>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/24/2024 6:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bfcfe9ea63d6e9$41977$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com>, >>>>>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:To interpret is to limit
On 3/24/2024 4:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bfc13b72bae17c$104$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 11:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bf9340d541bf3f$40$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 7:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 1:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <utmrq9$3n3jl$4@dont-email.me>, FPP
<fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
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:
No amendment is above being regulated. Period.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.
So describe how the 13th Amendment might be regulated beyond the
plain text of the Constitution, Shit-Shoes.
Thrill us with your acumen.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall
exist within the United States, or any place subject to their >>>>>>>>>>>>>> jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this
article by appropriate legislation."
...could be amended to...
Right. He meant no amendment is free from encroachment by congressionalAny amendment can be amended or repealed completely. That's not >>>>>>>>>>>>> what we're talking about. The issue is how a Court could interpret
Amendment XIII in any way that wouldn't allow for the very thing it
proscribes.
Yes, ANY amendment can be amended. What else are you imagining >>>>>>>>>>>> Scalia to be saying?
Scalia said regulation. He wasn't talking about the amendment >>>>>>>>>>> process, since that's self-explanatory and obvious and hardly needed
repeating.
The claim I've been supporting is "No amendment is sacrosanct". >>>>>>>>>
or judicial regulation.
I'm loath to declare what someone else meant, or to think that I know. >>>>>>>>
Regardless, it seems Scalia was talking specifically about the 2nd >>>>>>>> Amendment ...
Yes, the subject was the 2nd, but as Effa loves to parrot, he
specifically said no amendment, no freedom or right, was immune from >>>>>>> such limitation.
To which I say, give me an example of how the 13th Amendment can be >>>>>>> legitimately limited by the Judicial Branch.
And that's when Effa goes radio silent and slips into one his comas. >>>>>>
Nope. An amendment can easily be interpreted to give *more* freedom than >>>>> the plain text indicates, which is what the gun grabbers claim the Court >>>>> has done with the 2nd: that they've interpreted it to mean an individual >>>>> right of gun ownership rather than the limited right of militia members >>>>> to own guns.
Relaxing a limit is still setting one.
Nope.
If I write a law that says, "Everyone's allowed to own guns except
moviePig" and the Court comes along and says that's an illegal bill of
attainder and strikes the last two words, the Court hasn't set a limit.
It has removed one.
That's Zen word games.
You've got a lot of balls to complain about word games.
Is a limit of zero (or infinity) a limit? And,
is an abrogation an interpretation?
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;
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:
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;
Jesus, can you read?
New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/26/24 11:59 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/23/24 1:52 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/22/24 5:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
"moviePig" <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/22/2024 4:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
"FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/21/24 7:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
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;
Jesus, can you read?
New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
On 3/28/24 3:23 PM, trotsky wrote:
On 3/28/24 12:48 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:Jesus, can you read?
On 3/23/24 1:52 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <utmrou$3n3jl$3@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:You are not the NY Times. Bullshit.
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:
ﾊﾊﾊﾊ On Mar 22, 2024 at 4:17:05 AM PDT, "FPP"
<fredp1571@gmail.com>
ﾊﾊﾊﾊ wrote:
ﾊﾊﾊﾊ On 3/21/24 7:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:Don't need to be. I'm still protected under the 1st Amendment. >>>>>>>>>> Nowhere
ﾊﾊﾊﾊﾊﾊ In article
<17bee95657459db9$30487$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com>, >>>>>>>>>>>> ﾊﾊﾊﾊﾊﾊﾊﾊ moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote: >>>>>>
Seems you're now arguing for freedom of the press, as if >>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone inEffa disputed it: "Or try publishing National Defense >>>>>>>>>>>> secrets..."
this dialogue has ever disputed it.
Not many Usenet points for that...Points restored.
Thanny isn't a journalist.
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 >>>>>>>>>>> EspionageNew York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) >>>>>>>>>> Any elements of the Act that conflict with the Supreme Court's >>>>>>>>>> decision
Act,21 18 U.S.C. зз 793н 798
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.)
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?
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)
Can you read?
He keeps citing a news organization as the justification for citizens to
act like the Press.
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:
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;
Jesus, can you read?
New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
You're not the NY Times.
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. >>>>>>>>>> NowhereSeems you're now arguing for freedom of the press, as if >>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone inEffa disputed it: "Or try publishing National Defense
this dialogue has ever disputed it.
secrets..."
Not many Usenet points for that...Points restored.
Thanny isn't a journalist.
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 >>>>>>>>>>> EspionageNew York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
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.
On 3/29/24 1:51 PM, trotsky wrote:
On 3/29/24 9:12 AM, FPP 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. >>>>>>>>>>>> NowhereSeems you're now arguing for freedom of the press, as if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone inEffa disputed it: "Or try publishing National Defense >>>>>>>>>>>>>> secrets..."
this dialogue has ever disputed it.
Not many Usenet points for that...Points restored.
Thanny isn't a journalist.
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) >>>>>>>>>>>> Any elements of the Act that conflict with the Supreme Court's >>>>>>>>>>>> decision
National defense information in general is protected by the >>>>>>>>>>>>> Espionage
Act,21 18 U.S.C. зз 793н 798
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.
If anything he sounds more like High Times.
Still trying to figure out why Trump hasn't retained Thanny to defend
him in the Florida documents case?
Seems as if he could get him off easy, just by quoting from his Usenet posts. I mean, if it's not illegal and all...
On 3/29/24 1:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <uu6i9c$b577$2@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
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:
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;
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...
Nope. Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it so.
In article <uu9d3v$1363u$3@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/29/24 1:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <uu6i9c$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:
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;
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...
No, it's so because the Supreme Court says it's so.
On 3/30/24 3:52 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <uu9d3v$1363u$3@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/29/24 1:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Nope. Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it so.Jesus, can you read?You're not the NY Times.
New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
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...
No, it's so because the Supreme Court says it's so.
The right wing asshole Supreme Court you mean?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 62:24:39 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Files: | 12,244 |
| Messages: | 5,355,896 |