Um, I fail to see how freedom of surveillance falls under freedom of speech protections. Regulation of airspace is pretty well established in our law.

Well free speech apparently includes spending unlimited money to win elections and prayer at taxpayer expense, so we might as well throw drones on there too.

I smell an emerging tech category...

If flying camera platforms are free speech, then why wouldn't flying camera platform-killers be free speech, too? The FCPKs could fly over the surveillance drone and just trail and drop some string or wire to tangle its rotors.

Or a passive defense, like some sort of monofilament array around your home or office.

If taking pictures of an unwilling subject is free speech, then so is saying "fuck you" to whoever owns the drone.

You do realize that other freedoms are spelled out in the First Amendment besides speech right?

Like freedom of the fucking press, perhaps?

The 1st amendment has all sorts of exceptions curtailing speech that could place people in physical harm or that violates a reasonable expectation of privacy. In my opinion, drones can do both.

@4 - So you're saying this is an issue of freedom of religion?

@6: Did you miss my last paragraph? It could certainly be argued that banning tools that have demonstrable value to newsgathering abridges the freedom of the press.

So long as I can use wire guided shells in my 2nd amendment solution to take out those pervy drones ...

@5 is correct. Drones in parks by rangers to find list people or by rescue firefighters is one thing

But not the police without an individual warrant based on cause

@7: By that logic, government should be restricted from regulating the dissemination of malware, since hacking into someone's communication accounts could be useful for gathering information.
If we can regulate manned aircraft, why not drones exactly?

@10: Of course they can be regulated, just like airplanes and helicopters (also valuable newsgathering tools) are regulated. But an outright ban is something else entirely.