And I answered you:
That’s the actual, factual answer to the question of what the first amendment allows you to do: nothing at all. It prohibits government from doing things, it doesn’t allow you to do anything. The presumption is that you are already, by right of just being a person, allowed to do whatever you want unless there is a law stating otherwise. Laws don’t allow people to take actions.
There’s a huge body of law we could study about how to apply first amendment rights. But I’m not advocating for some particular interpretation of first amendment rights. I’m pointing out that whether or not a thing is illegal cannot be part of the analysis of whether it is a protected right. In fact, since all the first amendment does is disallow the making of certain laws, I could go further and say that the first amendment doesn’t apply unless the protected thing is illegal. It’s the moment that the government makes or attempts to make a law restricting religion/expression/protest that the first amendment comes up.
I’m not sure what you expect. I can’t list the full range of possible human actions and put each into one box or the other, and I’m not well qualified to do so anyway. But the fact that constitution beats legislation every time isn’t my interpretation, it’s a solid fact. I don’t know what you think I mean by that, but all I mean is exactly what I’m saying. If you think I’m saying that someone can burn your bulldozer, you are wrong. Hell, they probably can’t even stand on the street in front of your property with signs since at some point that would constitute harassment.
If they were prevented from protesting you for owning a bulldozer then that would be because legislation said they couldn’t do that. If they attempted to challenge that legislation on constitutional grounds, the fact that it was illegal wouldn’t be relevant - that fact would be the thing that they were contesting.
