This paper considers how the Supreme Court used an idealized history of the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 to help justify its decision in "New York Times v. Sullivan" in 1963. The first section of the paper discusses the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, the second section discusses the Court's use of history in the "New York Times" decision, the third section critiques the Court's history, and the final section considers the implications of this critique. The paper concludes that the Court historically has done little to protect speech and has only gradually come to afford protection to First Amendment freedoms. (One hundred and two notes are included.) (MS)