[oldleft]

I agree, to a point. The object of the 1st Amendment was to protect unpopular speech.

I try not to look too much at "intent" when interpreting the Constitution. If one starts to do that then you can make an argument for anything. The Framers wrote what they wrote, in no place clearer than the 1st Amendment, and it's our job to protect and defend it, not try to get inside their heads.

[tacticalogic]

I try not to look too much at "intent" when interpreting the Constitution. If one starts to do that then you can make an argument for anything. The Framers wrote what they wrote, in no place clearer than the 1st Amendment, and it's our job to protect and defend it, not try to get inside their heads.

I disagree. The powers the representatives of the original states transferred to the federal government were fixed at the time of transfer, as the were understood by the people who granted them. Without any knowlege of "intent", or care as to what the commonly understood meanings of the words were at that time the Constitution has no fixed meaning, but changes with the common usage and meanings of the words. You can redefine what the Constitution says, simply by redefining the words.

[Sola Veritas]

"The Framers wrote what they wrote, in no place clearer than the 1st Amendment, and it's our job to protect and defend it, not try to get inside their heads."

That is one of the tenants of strict contructionism - original intent of the framers. That is the error of judical activism - they don't look at original intent, they reinterpret to suit themselves. The "living document" approach is too loaded with caprice.

Bottom line is that the Framers would NOT have embraced pornography as a "free press" issue. Strange as it may sound, they would probably protect Moore's trash because it is political. However, they wouldn't be for protecting "Debbie Does Dallas." It is not political speech, it is entertainment. Until the later 20th Century when the Supreme Court started going activist, pornography was illegal.