None of the above are constitutional issues and referring to them will only act to cloud the proverbial waters.

Your comment: “The limits on 1A are post-violation penalties, either criminal or civil. The limits on 1A are enforced through adjudication of the individual.”

That’s the old which came first the chicken or the egg – the act or the law? Before laws were made restricting “free speech” [1st Amendment] – someone yelled FIRE in a movie theater. Prior to making it a criminal act, there were no restrictions on what you “yelled”. The law, ever evolving, recognized the public danger when the “free speech” defense was used in this type of case, and so, the exception to free speech was made.

Anticipating a possibility of others’ “bad behavior” [yelling "Fire!"] is how and why the 1st Amendment’s “right of free speech” was limited [regulated]. Eventually “hate speech” was also codified as not protected speech in the same way.The law [and I hope humans] is ever evolving.

As I said in my original post to you – the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are not unlimited rights – there have been many instances when these rights were regulated. The 2nd Amendment is not a special Amemdment nor different – the government may regulate or limit one’s “right-to-bear-arms”.

Even Justice Scalia recognized that fact in the Heller ruling.

The point is that they don’t ban your computer or everyone’s computer because you or someone might download and swap pornography.

Individual adjudicated and punished in a court of law after they break the law.

Should have been:

**
Please reread my comment.

I was talking about, “The restrictions to 1A are not prior-restraints type prohibitions on every one because someone might do something that is already illegal.

….

The limits on 1A are post-violation penalties, either criminal or civil. The limits on 1A are enforced through adjudication of the individual.”

Your example (send from your unrestrained computer) about “When the courts bar someone from owning a computer or being online for instance” only demonstrates my point.

An individual adjudicated in a court of law being barred is not the same as every one being restricted because someone might do something that is already illegal.

I am not sure where you get the idea that no one has their “free speech” rights violated by prior restraint but many do. When the courts bar someone from owning a computer or being online for instance.

————-

Please reread my comment.

I was talking about, “The restrictions to 1A are not prior-restraints type prohibitions on every one because someone might do something that is already illegal.

An individual adjudicated in a court of law being barred is not the same as every one being restricted because someone might do something that is already illegal.