Yes, you are being totally dishonest. You are framing your argument as though it is an accepted fact by using the clause "supporting criminal activity" to imply aiding and abetting crimes, which would be illegal. Nothing that is completely legal and protected under the 1st Amendment is criminal. Reword your question. Until then, my question to you is what information/data are you claiming is illegal under the 1st Amendment? You tell me that and I'll tell you how the 1st Amendment supports crime.
That is what she is doing, supporting criminal activity.
She is not aiding and abetting. Her information is protected speech. Period. Full stop.
Supporting criminal activity is not free speech.
Hence the error in your logic.
It's all information. You are running yourself into a brick wall. The 1st Amendment entirely protects Alé's free expression of information to whomever she wishes.
There can be only one question: Did Alé sign a non-disclosure agreement? No? Well, then she can say whatever she wishes to whomever she wishes.
The solution in this case is for DHS and ICE to practice good OPSEC and make sure nobody knows their plans and operations.
It is subverting immigration law
Nope. It is subverting deportation operations. Only Congress can alter/modify/abolish/subvert immigration law.
The 1st amendment does not even apply here.
The 1st Amendment always applies and, in this case, is the final word. All of Alé's expression is protected speech and that's as far as it will go. If you are expecting it to go beyond that, prepare to be heavily disappointed. Somebody might try to censure Alé, but that will be rather inconsequential.
Pivot fallacy. I am not discussing any book.
Of course not. The Anarchist's Cookbook falsifies your argument. You haven't ever read it, have you? It is a manual/handbook on how to break the law. It provides information just as Alé is doing. It's all protected speech.
BTW, if you DID follow the recipes in that book, you WILL damage yourself,
Not "will", but "very possibly can." Many resistance groups have relied upon that book religiously without problem. The book and its author have been investigated, ergo this entire issue has already been investigated thoroughly. It hasn't been tried in SCOTUS because nobody will waste the time going to SCOTUS just to lose handily.
You will also be violating federal and state law to do it.
... but the book itself, and the information it contains, is entirely legal.
There is nothing that protects supporting criminal activity.
There is no such thing as information that is somehow not protected under the 1st Amendment. This one's a non-starter.