3 ms·
You act as if I haven't read the constitution. I've pored over the constitution so many times, I'm well versed in obscurities down to the twenty dollar clause
by dnautics 5y ago
You act as if I haven't read the constitution. I've pored over the constitution so many times, I'm well versed in obscurities down to the twenty dollar clause and the post roads clause.
Can you explain to me how classifying content is not an abridgement of free speech in an absolute reading of the constitution?
"Congress shall make no law.."
It does not say "Congress shall make no law, unless it's classified"
The UCMJ is (of course) congressional law, so by your analysis, the UCMJ would be in abeyance of the first amendment.
- nobody9999 5y agoYou didn't answer my question. Rather, you moved the goalposts. Do that and I'll reciprocate. Have a great day!
- dnautics 5y agocontract law. done.
- nobody9999 5y ago>contract law. done. That doesn't answer my question. Which was: >Please explain how such narrow circumstances apply in this case? Or, absent those circumstances, under what legal framework would government restrictions on speech apply even to government-funded research? Please do explain. I'd be fascinated to hear it. Are you advocating that all government-funded research should (or already does) have NDAs associated with them? That's news to me. Please provide some documentation for your claim. Yes, Congress has implemented laws that are within the narrow exceptions to the the bar on restriction of speech. How does that apply in this specific case? What you are claiming/proposing is not the law of the land. What changes to the law/constitution are you proposing? I await your response with (hopefully) some actual exposition. Based on your previous writings in this thread, I won't hold my breath.
- nobody9999 5y ago>You act as if I haven't read the constitution. That's a result of your statements.