Freedom of the press is moot if you don't have a press, or are limited to antiques. Gun rights activists are fighting a similar issue in areas where the releva

Freedom of the press is moot if you don't have a press, or are limited to antiques. Gun rights activists are fighting a similar issue in areas where the relevant enumerated right is formally acknowledged yet acquisition of viable tools needed to exercise that right are forbidden. A right is suppressed if the government prohibits tools needed to exercise it in a normal, modern manner. "You can have a musket (but no cartridges or semiautomatics), so your right to bear arms is not infringed" is just as absurd as "you can have a Gutenberg-style movable type press (but no photocopiers or websites), so your right to speech & press are not infringed". Methinks the government COULD consider the internet a logical technological extension of Constitution Article I Section 8 "The Congress shall have Power ... To establish Post Offices and post Roads". If we want "press" to include "blogging from my iPhone", then surely "post" (as in mail and delivery thereof) should include "e-mail" (and delivery thereof). Insofar as it is treated as a "common carrier" wherein delivery is assured strictly regardless of content, and nothing akin to the gov't monopoly on First Class mail, that would be a proper exercise of an assigned federal power in a modern context. There is a subtle but important semantic difference between the governmental power to provide a service to citizens vs. the citizen's right to that service. In this thread's context, it's akin to the obligation of the gov't to deliver mail to your door (or even just to a local Post Office), but there is nothing obligating the government to bring mail into your house and read it too you (or transport you to the Post Office to pick up a package).