the court decision cited only took up source code, and not compiled object code, precisely because source code is meant to be read by humans. Also, the right to normal "spoken" speech can be abrogated when it is a call to immediate action, and it may not be a stretch that issuing a command to destroy evidence--a crime-- would be an unprotected communication towards immediate action.
With regard to publishing the encryption algorithm, the court found that he wasn't "refram[ing] an act to focus on speech" as you say but was engaging in the standard way that cryptologists communicate ideas: source code.
With regard to publishing the encryption algorithm, the court found that he wasn't "refram[ing] an act to focus on speech" as you say but was engaging in the standard way that cryptologists communicate ideas: source code.