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 --
First amendment analysis allows us to make intermediate scrutiny arguments that aren't coherent.'
( z1 allow :ARG0 ( z2 analyze :ARG1 ( z3 law :name ( z4 name :op "First" :op "Amendment" ) ) ) :ARG1 ( z5 argue :ARG0 ( z6 we ) :ARG1 ( z7 scrutiny :mod ( z8 intermediate ) ) :ARG1-of ( z9 cohere :polarity - ) ) )