6 ms·

Quite simply, because in 1789, "the press" meant the printing press. I pointed to historical references when that began to pivot to mean more broadly "journalis

Quite simply, because in 1789, "the press" meant the printing press. I pointed to historical references when that began to pivot to mean more broadly "journalism" in general, but in 1789, the printing press was the only meaning "the press" carried at the time. They of course couldn't have envisioned alternative mediums that the "press" might alternatively refer to. They couldn't have predicted radio, television, and the internet as alternative forms of "publication". There was the spoken word and the written word and that's all there was for thousands of years. The press simply made the written word more scalable. I understand that Constitutional rights are interpreted by Courts to carry meaning through progressions in technology or society norms. Clearly the spirit of the "freedom of the press" is partly an implied "right to publish" as you say, and as the 9th amendment underscores, the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. There is no mention of "distributing news and information" with regards to "freedom of the press" in the Constitution. It simply says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press. It doesn't justify it or give a reason for it. It's held to be self evident. It should be understood that the U.S. was founded on the principle of "liberty by default". There is no need to justify liberty. The purpose of the bill of rights was to provide extra protections against the egregiousness of government, to preserve liberty, but not to box it in and define it for all time to mean "these specific things." Clearly the founders couldn't foresee the advent of 3D printing, either. However, milling machines and molds very much did exist. It would be equally unthinkable to the founders to enable the government to restrict the usage of mills and molds on the basis that they might be used to produce arms (another right they saw fit to enumerate), as it would be to restrict 3D printing. On the basis of the 1st, 2nd, and 9th amendments, and the principles of liberty itself; the 3D printing press should remain as equally free as the 2D printing press.

akerl_ 3y ago
So you’re presenting your own opinion about how the amendment should be interpreted. That’s fine, but it seems disingenuous to present that opinion as if it’s a factual statement about how the constitution was written or has been interpreted by courts. I’m not aware of any case law that’s suggested the 1st amendment’s freedom of press implies anything about mills or molds, nor do you seem to have any rational for why “the press” should be literal but “speech” wouldn’t be, other than you think that’s how they should be interpreted.
- chrisco255 3y ago
  Read my original statement. It is a fact that "the press" in the first amendment referred to the printing press. That is indisputable. That courts have expanded that at times or attempted to hone in on its meanings over the centuries is irrelevant to that fact or to my point. It is an opinion, that goes without saying, when I offer: "The 3D printing presses should remain equally free." The right to speak, the right to pursue happiness, the right to print freely on a press, the right to bear arms, the right to liberty, these are all enumerated rights. These are more than enough to cover the right to print in 3D, nevermind that these enumerations are non-exhaustive.

akerl_ 3y ago

So you’re presenting your own opinion about how the amendment should be interpreted. That’s fine, but it seems disingenuous to present that opinion as if it’s a factual statement about how the constitution was written or has been interpreted by courts. I’m not aware of any case law that’s suggested the 1st amendment’s freedom of press implies anything about mills or molds, nor do you seem to have any rational for why “the press” should be literal but “speech” wouldn’t be, other than you think that’s how they should be interpreted.

chrisco255 3y ago
Read my original statement. It is a fact that "the press" in the first amendment referred to the printing press. That is indisputable. That courts have expanded that at times or attempted to hone in on its meanings over the centuries is irrelevant to that fact or to my point. It is an opinion, that goes without saying, when I offer: "The 3D printing presses should remain equally free." The right to speak, the right to pursue happiness, the right to print freely on a press, the right to bear arms, the right to liberty, these are all enumerated rights. These are more than enough to cover the right to print in 3D, nevermind that these enumerations are non-exhaustive.