Since you don't point to any specific statement, you'll have to expound on this: "And there you have the 2nd most common form of mis-interpretation of the Constitution: the "you can't yell fire in a movie theater" ridiculousness."
The police tried to say filming them either with cameras or recording equipment (video or film) was illegal and even arrested some people. The SCOTUS said "Bullpucky and Horse feathers" (legal terminology) and said the police were wrong, it was...
You said a lot of things, but nothing that actually refutes this statement: "Freedom of the press is guaranteed, but the methods of how they gain their information is not and is certainly not a constitutionally-defined area."
I am not arguing...
It certainly is a valid question, especially if you’re an originalist interpreter of the constitution - which for most US history is how it has been interpreted. It is the only way to keep from going down slippery slopes of reinterpreting what...