My point was that the “originalist” view of the constitution falls apart when you see that the Supreme Court has ruled that speech that the framers couldn’t eve

My point was that the “originalist” view of the constitution falls apart when you see that the Supreme Court has ruled that speech that the framers couldn’t even imagine is protected. They've done the same with the fourth (you can’t search a car without a warrant or probable cause even if it’s in public... to an extent). I was arguing that if you want to take an originalist view to the constitution, you’d need to give up your protection of speech online and in many other areas.