You've worked yourself into some untenable logic here is the problem, and now you are trying to squirm out of it like you have on each of my posts, by calling out individual items and claiming that is my point when it isn't.
Final comment to you. Maybe you will get it but I doubt it: Photography is not illegal in the United States of America. You cannot be arrested (legally) for taking a picture from a public space. You can only be arrested for some other law you are breaking, perhaps while taking a picture.
Get it? Clear??
this post by you.
If no, with both actions you can complain to relevant authorities that you were stopped for an action which was not a disturbance. If yes, and you were chopping wood, you clearly have no recourse.
Now cyrus, are you saying that if your photography was a public disturbance, you would still be allowed to carry on with it because it protected by the 1st ?
Terminiello v. Chicago - the guy there was charged for "disturbing the peace" because he made a radical speech that got people riled up. Supreme Court ruled that stirring people up was probably even a good thing.
In general, we don't allow or prohibit speech based on whether the public approves of it or finds it disturbing or annoying or whatever.
Note of course the it also depends on the nature of the public disturbance. Causing people to get upset and worked up is quite legal. Causing a mass riot is something else.