Originally Posted by Gallium
That is not what he said/implied. From what I gather, he refers to the punishments available to remedy those who have been slandered/etc, not the (any) restrictions which may be in place to prevent the slanderous act in the 1st place.
Because really, there are very few mechanisms in place to "prevent" abuse of free speech, when compared to the proliferation of the means of free speech.
- not arguing anything else.
Those "remedies" are laws which define and restrict the limits of "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the Press".
That is clearly outside of an absolutist interpretation of the 1st amendment. To maintain that the first amendment is not absolute but the second is reveals an inconsistent interpretation methodology which is clearly based on self interest rather than sound interpretation principles or the historical record.