It seems to me that "press" and "speech" are simply two forms of "expression". The freedom of both is protected. I think it's fairly easy to fold those two into one, and further to fold the "petition for redress of grievances" into it as well. I don't agree with folding those three freedoms/rights into one, but I can see how somebody might do it.
I see freedom to practice one's own religion and freedom from having to support (or even put up with) some other religion that has been established by the state as two very distinct freedoms.
I don't see how there is any rational basis for folding the two religious protections into one "freedom of religion" and NOT folding the three expressive protections into one "freedom of expression".
I suggest looking at the placement of commas in the 1A because the commas separate six distinct things that the Congress is forbidden to do.
1) It is forbidden to establish a religion.
2) It is forbidden to prohibit the free exercise of religion.
3) It is forbidden to abridge the freedom of speech.
4) It is forbidden to abridge the freedom of the press.
5) It is forbidden to "pass a law respecting" the right of the people to peaceably assemble
6) It is forbidden to "pass a law respecting" the right of the people to petition the Government.
“It seems to me that ‘press’ and ‘speech’ are simply two forms of ‘expression’”
The press involves speech, obviously, and certainly much of what they do could be covered by free speech alone. But they also expect, and often get, special consideration having nothing to do with speech. I couldn’t name all these considerations, only to say that I know they don’t include, for instance, freedom from being compelled to testify on the basis that you don’t want to reveal a source, since I know that’s been decided against the press. Access is one, I gather, as are invidious taxes. Not bills of attainder, either, but special taxes against newspapers in general, for instance. These considerations are not absolutes, of course, but then again neither is free speech.
“I see freedom to practice one’s own religion and freedom from having to support (or even put up with) some other religion that has been established by the state as two very distinct freedoms.”
I see trumping up the government not being able to establish religion to an individual’s freedom from having to support some religion as an abuse of language. You could warp any restriction on the power of the state as a freedom in this manner, or frankly any authorization of power if you’re clever enough, too, which dilutes what we commonly mean when we refer to freedom.
“what we commonly mean when we refer to freedom”
Rather, I should say what we commonly mean when we refer to specific freedoms.
“I don’t see how there is any rational basis for folding the two religious protections into one ‘freedom of religion’ and NOT folding the three expressive protections into one ‘freedom of expression’”
There’s one pretty obvious rational basis, in that the different freedoms of expression are specified, whereas on of the religious items does not constitute a freedom, or at least a much more roundabout freedom than the others.
on of the religious items = one of the religious items
“I suggest looking at the placement of commas in the 1A because the commas separate six distinct things that the Congress is forbidden to do”
You wouldn’t need to worry about comma placement to get that meaning. In fact, I don’t think you’ll find much of anyone to argue against there being six forbiddens in amendment one.