Scalia is, as always, dead on.
The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
It does not grant a right to free speech to individual persons, as the left has argued. It restricts congress from making any law prohibiting or abridging the freedom of speech. Period. The First Amendment is not about what people may or may not do. It is about what congress may or may not do.
This is clearer thinking than four of our SCOTUS justices. I haven't yet read the majority opinion yet, but can't image it being put more succinctly than you have here.
To carry Stevens' logic a bit further - if his interpretation is correct, we would have the right to practice religion individually, but not form a church.
The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”It does not grant a right to free speech to individual persons, as the left has argued. It restricts congress from making any law prohibiting or abridging the freedom of speech. Period. The First Amendment is not about what people may or may not do. It is about what congress may or may not do.
Do you mind if I quote you elsewhere, using only your screen name? (Or I can just say "unidentified forum poster" if you wish.) That is absolutely on the money. I might "bold" "period" and underline the last sentence...
:-)