> This was a genuinely destructive activity at times.
I don't see why printing pamphlets on your own printing press would be destructive. On the other hand, this guy was defacing other peoples' property (the public's). Defacing other people's property is certainly not constitutionally protected, for any reason.
> I don't see why printing pamphlets on your own printing press would be destructive.
Pamphleteering involved posting bills in public spaces, using nail or glue to put up posters or pamphlets in the public square, etc. It was certainly a pain in the ass for the people who had to clean up afterward, which is why this being a living legal issue dating back a couple of hundred years. And the founders thought it was a process worthy of fundamental legal protection.
As with many constitutional protections, attempts have been made to erode it by well meaning or not so well meaning government, but even in cities like New York it usually just takes a civil liberties lawsuit to make the more egregious restrictions go away.
> On the other hand, this guy was defacing other peoples' property (the public's).
There was no property damage and speech in public spaces is protected.
> Defacing other people's property is certainly not constitutionally protected, for any reason.
When interpreting the bill of rights there is a meaningful distinction between public and private property that you are apparently unaware of. This distinction affects a lot of things under the law, not just what we're talking about.
> That's because that distinction is not, as far as I know, actually in the Bill of Rights.
It's a distinction made in the case law, even by strict textualists like Justice Scalia. It's not a weakness of the document that it doesn't spell everything out for you.
I don't see why printing pamphlets on your own printing press would be destructive. On the other hand, this guy was defacing other peoples' property (the public's). Defacing other people's property is certainly not constitutionally protected, for any reason.