Majority:  Holmes’ majority opinion makes a few major points:

a.  No, and D’s criminal contempt is upheld.  The main purpose of the First Am. is “to prevent all prior restraints upon publications as had been practiced by other government,” and the First Am. does not prevent the subsequent punishment of such publications that are deemed contrary to the public welfare.

1.  Holmes’ discussion re prior restraints and the First Am. parallels Blackstone’s discussion of prior restraints and English law in his 1769 Commentaries.  Specifically, Blackstone writes how the elimination of licensing in England in 1694 prevented the government from laying any previous restrains upon publications, but the government could subsequently punish the publisher of any publications that were “improper, mischievous, or illegal.”  In England, as in the U.S., publishers were frequently punished, after publication, for the crime of “seditious libel”.  “Seditious libel” is an amorphous open-ended offense extending to almost any criticism of government.

b.  The First Am. prevents prior restrains on publications, no matter if they are true or false.  Similarly, under the law of common law criminal libel, there can be subsequent punishment of publications, no matter if they are true or false, so long as they are deemed contrary to the public welfare.

c.  It is left undecided whether or not the First Am. is applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Am.  Thus, D in this case does not even have a First Am. claim.  But the above analysis re whether or not the criminal contempt conviction violated the First Am. is carried out, arguendo, assuming the First Am. applies to the states via the Fourteenth Am.