The Times has a past history of taking the position that the First Amendment protects a wide range of activities — "animal cruelty videos" depicting "animals being crushed or mutilated," "the sale of violent video games to minors," "material support" to terrorist groups — but does not protect the ability of an American to run a television commercial about a political issue without disclosing his identity or the identity of his funders. Today the paper has an editorial adding another activity (other than political speech) to the list of those it claims is protected by the First Amendment. This time around, it is the ability of illegal immigrant day laborers to solicit potential employers.
Just the latest example of how the Times editorialists are First Amendment absolutists regarding everything except for the political speech that the First Amendment was designed to protect in the first place.