dufflepud

Not sure if it'll make you feel better, but the ACLU spends a fair amount of time litigating on behalf of neo-Nazis and KKK members, too. Folks are always trying to ban hate speech, so the ACLU goes and reminds them about the First Amendment.

You might enjoy reading Stevens's dissent in Heller (link). Very different take on the history than the one you've supplied here.

Edit: Moreover, to the extent that you think originalism offers a worthwhile way to interpret the Constitution, you might want to check your intuitions about the First Amendment. The original understanding was simply that the First Amendment barred "prior restraints" (i.e. censorship). Note, too, that it didn't even apply to the states until the Supreme Court "incorporated" it via the 14th Amendment in the early 1900s. Not saying that you have to hold the same view about both, but it's always helpful to explain why two like things deserve different treatment.

You make a good point, and I agree.

Follow up to your response: given how rapidly public opinion about he LGBT community is changing, do you think it's appropriate for courts to establish, via binding precedent, some level of heightened scrutiny as the standard, right now? Or should they continue to use rational basis until things stop moving so quickly?

How would you distinguish allowing internet companies to charge more or less for particular forms of content from, say, toll roads? Or, even more closely, how is it different from charging more for ad time during the Superbowl than during Law and Order reruns at 1 a.m. on a Tuesday?

Isn't that more or less the same concept? I guess I'm just having trouble understanding why discriminating on the basis of ability to pay is okay pretty much everywhere except the internet.