You didn’t argue that the press is free, that speech is free, that the right to defend yourself exists. You argued that the restrictions on press are justified

You didn’t argue that the press is free, that speech is free, that the right to defend yourself exists. You argued that the restrictions on press are justified, said nothing about free speech, and that you hopefully don’t need to defend yourself. So it sounds like we agree on the basic premise I set forth, but disagree on the importance of it.