During world war 1 it was a crime to criticize the president or the war effort. Would a court today find such a law as a constitutional valid interpretation of the dirt amendment? Why or why not

A court today would not find that to be constitutionally valid.

Explanation:

There is a multitude of laws that override the censorship of press, especially to criticize the president. When there are restrictions in free speech, citizens may feel as though they are being dis-empowered. The first amendment allows for free speech, and even if the sitting president feels that it may be harmful, they have no authority to stop free speech.