When did I ever argue that you or the tea partiers, or anyone else was not entitled to free speech? In fact, I said exactly the opposite - that both sides are still entitled to free speech. That is why your argument was a straw man.
Now, how about explaining how my statement that Fox News is protected by the 1st Amendment is a straw man? It is a statement of legal fact. I chose Fox because I figured you felt that 1st Amendment protection was important so that you have access to its perspective. Perhaps I was wrong. Or are you trying to say that Fox News is not protected by the 1st Amendment? Is my belief, supported by many court decisions, that the constitution protects Fox News, along with The Nation, Daily Kos, and Breitbart, merely crap? You're just being goofy.
I know you'd much rather believe that everyone who disagrees with you is an evil totalitarian commie, but it's not true, any more than some people's belief that everyone on the right is an evil totalitarian nazi.
Do you know why I don't post pictures of stupid signs? Because the stupidity of protected speech is irrelevant. Because speech that is not protected is not what I am talking about ("fire in a crowded theater").
Have fun.
"Free speech for me but not for thee" is a "straw man"? Huh? And on the subject of "straw men", I guess you forgot your Fox News crap earlier.