Free speech is under attack and your position is a big reason why.
Everyone and his dog is going to have a difinition of what does and does not constitute “speech” protected under 1A.
You really need to think this through more carefully.
You really need to rethink your position on constitutional interpretation. You sound more like Ruth Bader than anyone else on the Court.
No, you're dodging. The Framers and the citizens who ratified the Constitution quite obviously considered a large number of things to be outside protected speech that you are including in, and when Rebekah asked you to reconcile that, you just kept repeating your definition of speech. Well, if your definition of speech and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison's definition of sppech are different, then you need to explain why we should operate under your definition and not theirs.
oops, embarassingly I forgot for a moment that Thomas Jefferson was not a Framer...he was Ambassador to France at the time. Still, insert George Washington in there and the same point remains.