Just like free speech doesn't include a right to be published against the will of the publisher, I think free speech doesn't include a right to republish creative works against the will of the author (or his publisher).
There are ways to direct people to the full text of articles while enabling their discussion. If it really was a conflict between property rights and free speech, it might be different. But it's only a conflict between property rights and convince.
Sorry; you are wrong.
The First Amendment was placed because the Anti-Federalists knew that if not protected, your right to undiluted and honest information about the state of the nation would be hobbled and curtailed by the powers that be. You just try to go into a Presidential, Senate, or Congressional news-conference. You don't have the requisite papers to attend; you won't get in. In defense of those requirements, the purpose of establishing some form of orderly distribution of the news means that some of us, the Citizens, will be unable to get in but all of us will get the information as disseminated. The right for us to discuss, dissemble, decry, and detail the anomalies of competing press accounts is the sole reason for the People having the freedom of the press, and not for the corporations to have a copyright.
News, editorials, opinion-pieces, pertaining to current events in government, law, and politics is all fair game to the People.
Art, inventions, research compilations, fictional works, are the items for copyright.
Do you think news is creative content?
Most of what's posted here is not only creative content, it's commercial goods. 90% of the people who post here can report the news, but 99% of those would make lousy syndicated columnists.
Nothing's being withheld from the people by limiting full text copy and republication. The source of the discussions taking place here would still just be a click away.