[garv]

We don't need to "divine" anything. Madison's original draft of the amendment was based entirely on English common law. I've already posted Blackstone's dissertation on freedom of the press which makes clear that prohibiting prior restraint was the intention of the law.

This interpretation stood until post-WWI when the SC evidently became so enlightened we started down the road to legalized "virtual child porn". I can't belive the republic survived for 150 years without it.

[general_re]

The problem with Blackstone's commentary is that it is, at best, a vague expression of general principles. What constitutes "bad sentiments, destructive to the ends of society"? Who decides? Are the wacky jokers over at stormfront.org "destructive to the ends of society"? The German government sure seems to think so.

And what happens if/when a majority of people in this country decide that carrying a picture of an aborted fetus is "destructive to the ends of society"? Or that evangelizing for your preferred religion is "destructive"? To what principle will you appeal then?

You are talking about unleashing forces that you cannot possibly hope to control...

[donh]

This interpretation stood until post-WWI when the SC evidently became so enlightened we started down the road to legalized "virtual child porn". I can't belive the republic survived for 150 years without it.

What part of "congress shall make no law" do you think requires me to look elsewhere for extensive analysis?