No, but that's the Copyright Clause argument, and it seems to me you're saying, okay, we then apply that in First Amendment analysis, which allows us to make a coherent intermediate scrutiny argument. If we don't accept the Copyright Clause retrospectivity argument --
after the Copyright Clause argumen is paplied, it will allow them make a coherent intermediate scrutiny argument.
according to the text,  apply that in First Amendment analysis, which "allows" us to make a coherent intermediate scrutiny argument, which makes the statement true. 
( z1 allow :ARG0 ( z2 plate :ARG1 ( z3 argue :mod ( z4 law :name ( z5 name :op "Copyright" :op "Clause" ) ) ) :time ( z6 after :op z2 ) ) :ARG1 ( z7 argue :ARG0 ( z8 they ) :ARG1-of ( z9 cohere ) :topic ( z10 scrutiny :mod ( z11 intermediate ) ) ) )