And then "What cruel and unusual punishment looked like."
Many who like the idea of a living Constitution want parts frozen in time without updates. Or they think that "living" means it can be pruned and sections completely invalidated by the appropriate use of judicial fiat.
The press had to be free in a free society. Some government had fees associated with setting up a press, that limited it; or issued patents to allow a press to be used. There were per-sheet paper taxes that limited the free press. Notice that the grammar here is a bit old: "Freedom of the press" is like saying "the diet of the tiger is primarily dead animals." It doesn't have in mind a single tiger, but "tiger kind": "The diet of tigers is primarily dead animals" has the same meaning. So also "freedom of the press" is "freedom of presses". We're talking about the contraption made out of wood with lead inserts. Period.
But ultimately, "free press" meant that the use and operation of a press was free of government control. The idea of the "press" being periodical journalism and consisted of a press corps is strictly post-Constitution. That reporter arguing he should be allowed to do X because of the freedom of the press? "Fine, there's no restriction on the use of the press. You're going to jail." But what use is the contraption if you can't freely report? (That goes to free speech.) That the "press corps" is deserving of special rights is still a vexed issue.
The press was wooden and hand-driven. It had a slow turnaround time. You'd have to typeset the text and hand print it. The ink would have to dry. Then you'd have to fold it and distribute it, or bind it. It makes mimeographs look like rocket science. And the paper had to pass from hand to hand. I can produce 500 copies of a perfectly bound book in less time now than it would have taken to produce 500 copies of a two-sided broadside in 1790. Think of the possibilities of subversion, fraud, all the crime that his new technology allows. much better to be held to the old idea of the press. No? No.
Nobody expects the Constitution to be held to those standards. We update the technology, within reason. That seems like a reasonable thing to do, don't you agree? Even if with it comes all sorts of social ills. There are the words. Then there's the intent of the words. The intent can be altered as technology requires and society allows; it can't be rolled back, because of the nature of natural rights, inalienable rights. If a right is inalienable, it's not "social contract" time. Social contract rights are never inalienable. It's a definition thing.
We even update the larger conceptual issues around the technology. No longer is it just the press that should be free. Many think that the press corps should be some sort of immune system for the body politic, exempt from many of the strictures on us mere mortals. That's especially true of the members of the press corps.
If you like the WaPo article and you like the freedom of the press, here's what you want to have free of government intrusion:
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/illustration-showing-the-printing-press-upon-which-benjamin-news-photo/151390859
By 1790 it had a bit more metal, but the first all-metal press was from 1795. Tech didn't change much between Franklin's printing days and 1790.
Note it was not a poor man's sport, printing. Spendy, paper, ink, lead, repairs, manpower. And dangerous, with all that lead you'd have to handle.
= new reply since forum marked as read