John Milton, in his 17th century essay “Areopagitica”, is widely regarded as having written one of history’s noblest vindication of intellectual liberty ever penned (Morison, 93) with respect to the issue of freedom of speech over printed text. Similarly, the 21st century ACLU online article Fahrenheit 451.2: Is Cyberspace Burning? also appears to present an argument in favour of freedom of speech. The primary difference between Milton’s argument and that of the ACLU appears to be simply one of different mediums for information access. This paper will argue, however, that Milton’s argument differs significantly from that of the ACLU in that Milton never actually advocates freedom of the press. Rather, as will be seen, Milton argues in favour of denying the state the possibility of placing previous restraint upon the publication of information. Within this context, Milton supported the possibility of the state banning books or prosecuting writers after publication. The key difference between Milton’s view and that of the ACLU is that the latter group advocates a much more sweeping approach to the idea of freedom of speech from all prosecution. However, with respect to the issue of “blocking” access to sites, it is clear that both the ACLU and Milton would be in agreement. As will be argued, the insertion of “blocking” technology clearly places “previous restraint” upon information.