[lehighguy]

I read it in Scalia Dissents, a book of Scalia's dissents. Maybe it was another similair case, maybe there was something else related too it, anyway, I'm going on what I read there.

If you read scalia's philosophy there are ways by which you determine original meaning.

1) The Text is Clear
The right to bear arms means guns, not phsyical arms. If there is question as to wording, consult dictionaries from the era and other research.

2) The Text is Unclear, but there is precedent from the time of the laws implementation.

Something may have multiple meanings and be complex. As such, you try to go back to the time the law was implemented and see how the court interpreted it then. This is the best way of determining original meaning.

As such, the fact that there is precedent going back to the time of the constitution is relevent to original meaning. If the court made rulings in relation to print advertisement and used the logic that is was the primary means of communication and public discourse, then it doesn't take much (or any really, just common sense) interpreting to update it for TV or internet because they are now the primary forum for public discourse and communication.