[chajin]

As someone who never went to law school, I don't think it takes a J.D. to notice that the Fourth Amendment only disallows "unreasonable searches and seizures," while the First Amendment says categorically that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Whether a TSA pat-down is a "reasonable search" is a matter of law, but there is no Constitutionally-protected Federal law restricting "the freedom of speech."

P.S. I know "the freedom of speech" is specifically referring to a compact between individuals and society, based on the writings of Locke and Blackstone among others, a "deal" that society would protect the freedom of individuals to state that which they believed to be true based on evidence and reason, and that individuals in return would only state that which they had reason to believe to be true and which protected the life, liberty, and property of others--that is why libel and slander are not protected by the First Amendment. Nevertheless, the Fourth Amendment protection is against "unreasonable search and seizure," while the First Amendment protection is much closer to absolute, as close as possible without turning the Constitution into a suicide pact.

[Paladin2]

What does not infringe mean?

[TBP]

There is nothing reasonable about the TSA or anything it does.

[1010RD]

Good analysis and your thinking, I believe, would shut down major portions of the Patriot Act (misnamed), the NSA domestic spying, and eliminate the TSA.