Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is a good discussion. I would like for us to look at the construction of the amendment. It is not by accident. Start by locating the semicolons. Let's separate there as they were meant as major separators.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This makes it more obvious that the paired clauses within the major divisions have relation to each other. Establishment/free exercise in the first and assembly/redress in the last.
The middle one, by its separation, we can see the intended connection of speech and press. As I understand it as a non-lawyer, these refer to the primary modes of communication at the time, the spoken word and the printed word, and the clause purposefully connects the two and their use.
There is another interesting aspect. Both refer to the mechanics of the communication, not to the subject of the communication. It does not exactly say "abridging the freedom to talk, or to print" it uses speech (not oratory but the
machinery used to communicate vocally) and press.
This "interpretation" can be brought directly into the 21st Century painlessly. No law may be made that abridges speech (which has not changed) and the means of communicating by written words. At the time, when authoritarian governments wished to stop the spread of information, they would imprison speakers and destroy the presses mechanically. The clause specifically addresses the sanctity of the machinery of communication, voice and press, as not being something that can be abridged.
Brought forward, that would include the use of computers, radio, television and other additions to the modes of communication. We have allowed "The Press" to take those words as an exclusion to themselves, when it is merely a title developed from their mode of communication as determined by the machinery they used.
You may take exception to my understanding. Fine, it will not bother me, but you should look at the next amendment which does the same thing. It is the "right to keep and bear arms," the machinery of defense may not be abridged, not the right of defense itself.
Speech without the ability to talk has no value. There is no value in the potential of printing and distributing information if the press is not available.
Mr. Kenner above asks, "But what's 'press'"? The answer is that it is the mechanics used to print. Its use is not to be abridged. I would propose that the Founders would include any other means of production had they known.