No, you clearly stated that "the law is wrong, and you won't follow it." That is not the "same thing."
You're nearly impossible to have a civilized conversation with. Those two subjects were not related. I'm not even sure why you invented this sentence.
Yes, the law is wrong and I choose not to obey it. Period.
I also explained how the 'reasonable restriction' analogy of the 1st Amendment is not actually a restriction upon it. The premise of which you virtually repeated yourself, I'm guessing you didn't actually read what I wrote. What you said on that topic was damn near exactly the same thing that I did.
I did not try to tie one to the other, so I'm not sure what it is you're arguing against. Are you pretending I related them, so you can try to blast me for having relating them, which is something I didn't do?
I was explaining that since a Reasonable Restriction doesn't actually exist on the 1st (which you re-iterated yourself and then told me I wasn't doing), using that as an excuse to create a Reasonable Restriction upon others is deceptive.
It's like saying that since Air is made out of Bananas, we should make Water out of Bananas as well. It is presumption of a false premise. Pretending to apply it to 'this ALSO,' when the 'also' doesn't make sense and doesn't exist to begin with.
That false premise does exist in law. I'm not arguing that. I'm just not going along with it because it is a demented, hateful perversion. It seemed like the OP was weighing that possibility, so I chose to discuss it.
I have articulated it exceptionally well, and in multiple redundancies. If you're still going to make something of it that it isn't, then you may waste your time doing so but no more of mine.