[tpaine]

The words of the Constitution itself should be the principle source of its interpretation. Whether the words "no law...abridging the freedom of speech" applies to the internet depends only and entirely on whether one honestly thinks that messages sent over the internet (such as all of our postings here) are rightfully to be considered "speech," as the Framers would have understood the term.

Is there doubt in your mind that our posts are ~not~ protected free speech?

In other words, would James Madison (or other educated persons of that era) think that this comment I'm making is "speech?" That's the right methodology of interpretation.
The words of the Constitution are not properly understood as the set of all their late 18th-century referents, but instead as a function of their semiotic sense. The sense of words is how we normally interpret their meaning in a legal context.

"Semonic sense" is necessary to understand the constitution?
-- Amusing idea, as that site is non-sensible pretentious blather, imo.

[sourcery]

Is there doubt in your mind that our posts are ~not~ protected free speech?

I'm sure there are those who think "speech" in the First Ammendment refers only to the spoken word, and words written on paper. I'm not one of them. Not at all.

"Semonic sense" is necessary to understand the constitution? -- Amusing idea, as that site is non-sensible pretentious blather, imo.

Have you published any papers, in referred scientific journals, with your detailed and scholarly criticisms of semiotics? If not, perhaps you should. I'm sure it would be quite enlightening.