in the name of protecting them, we've already lost sight of what is important.

protections: such protection is reserved to those hiding behind the 2nd Amendment.

Let's not start with the 1st Amendment. Let's begin with the 4th. The 4th Amendment provides protections against unreasonable search and seizure. Should the Government come into evidence that an individual is plotting against the United States, through normal legal channels, then the 4th Amendment and the 1st Amendment is satisfied. In other words, if an informant told the FBI that John Smith was plotting to blow up a monument, and had some evidence of meetings etc. In other words more than wild claims. Then the FBI would be able to get warrants under the 4th to search for additional evidence.

Where the AP story breaks down is that the 4th Amendment is supposed to strictly limit the area to be searched. Records for 100 phones is hardly narrow. In addition to the information on the people they were looking at, they got information on people completely unrelated to the warrant naming the person, and place to be searched. The intent of the 4th was broken at the minimum.

Then the other amendments are applied. A Warrant is supposed to be served at the time the Search is conducted. A subpoena is a demand for information, which is submitted prior to the information changing hands. What the FBI did during the AP case is give the phone company the Subpoena, and after they had the records, notified the AP that they were looking at them. Again, in the spirit of the 4th Amendment, completely wrong. If you were the prosecutor, and you wanted whatever evidence I might have, and did not have enough evidence for a warrant, then you would issue a subpoena. If I didn't like it, I could go to court and object. The Judge would decide, They normally side with the Police, but sometimes limit the documents more strictly than the Cops would like.

Just suspecting that someone may be plotting against the nation is not enough of a reason to listen to everyones phone calls. Nor is that enough reason to get everyones phone records. A gut feeling that something bad is going to happen is bullshit, and doesn't give the Government the right to anything.

The protections of the 1st Amendment are not absolute, nor were they intended to be.

But its far more likely that politicians will try to curtail our first amendment freedoms to protect against that said person, and thus do more damage than that one hypothetical person you are talking about could ever imagine.

When you can't speak out or bring the truth to the masses, that is when tyranny takes over.