The comment said that it is without any question speech protected by the 1st Amendment. My comment is obviously following up on that.
I do not think it is clear that publishing a judge's address is the kind of speech that is necessarily protected by the 1st Amendment, and certainly not the kind that would have been considered inherently worthy of protection around when the 1st Amendment was written. And I suspect the claim that it is "without question" is a naive one.
I will answer. Publishing the address of an individual is absolutely protected by the First Amendment unless it can be reasonably deemed a true threat, or an incitement to violence, under the appropriate judicial tests.
Are you saying that a judge's address is not free speech" in this post-Enlightenment (unenlightened?) period.