Faking precedent

Regardless of what my personal opinion may be, it always annoys me when people start acting all indignant about the law and their rights over things where they are clearly on the wrong side of the law, or at least of its widely accepted interpretation.

Examples:

[Situation]
At the beginning of last year, when a comedian was kicked off stage at Manchester for using hate speech and being wildly offensive. People started throwing a fuss about free speech and how Manchester was infringing on our rights, saying "free speech is dead at Manchester." Later that year, a discussion arose on the board outside the Peace Studies lounge asking "should Manchester College have a hate speech code?" One answer read simply, "NO! First amendment!"
[Fact]
First, we should make clear that declaring codes against hate speech or indecncy in violation of the First Amendment is not exactly settled law, though it seems to be getting in that direction (thanks in part to the ACLU). But more applicably, the First Amendment declares that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..." It says nothing about Manchester College, a private institution that is well within its rights to restrict hate speech as much as it wants.

[Situation]
I was arrested in March on charges of criminal trespass in the Federal Building in Fort Wayne, Indiana, while sitting with two friends (Cliff and James) in the hallway outside Senator Lugar's office. We were praying, reading the names of Indiana soldiers killed in Iraq, and talking with each other, all while "occupying" the hallway and awaiting Senator Lugar's full support of complete troop withdrawal or, more likely, arrest. At around 3pm we were arrested by U.S. Marshals and later transferred to the Allen County Jail. Friends and allies consistently expressed anger at our arrest, and a popular slogan in the area peace community and on websites became "Arrested for praying."
[Fact]
We were in a publicly-owned building inside normal business hours when we were arrested, and we were not causing any sort of a disturbance. But the fact is we were willing to stay until after business hours and had every intention of being arrested. And the White House is public property, but that doesn't give you the right to waltz into the President's bedroom. We disobeyed a direct order by a U.S. Marshal to leave the hallway. We were, in fact, engaging in criminal trespass, and it was no injustice that we were arrested. I think some people want the government to be the "bad guy" in every situation, and they were quick to grab our arrest as a great example of horrible oppression. That's a lost cause - we were breaking the law (a perfectly reasonable law at that), and we were willing to accept the consequences. I'm sure Cliff and James would be with me in saying our arrest is not where we want people to focus their attention - instead, we rather hoped our arrest would direct attention at the injustice of the war itself.

[Situation]
Tv-links.co.uk, a popular website for viewing TV shows and movies, was recently shut down and its owner arrested. There were indignant protests on Digg, saying this isn't democracy and we're on our way to a complete loss of our rights, and, as always, more comments about the First Amendment.
[Fact]
The U.S. Constitution does not say anything about guaranteeing the right to take a video camera into a movie theater and post the movie on a website, and no court has ever ruled that movie or television piracy is protected under freedom of speech. I'm opposed to copyright law and enforcement and all for the free flow of ideas, but I don't think any of it is illegal or unjust.