3 ms·
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
by 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 agoRead 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.