Does section 425.16 of the California Anti-SLAPP Act protect activity that is not in furtherance of constitutionally protected speech or petition?

By necessary implication, the anti-SLAPP statute does not protect activity that, because it is illegal, is not in furtherance of constitutionally protected speech or petition rights. (Wilcox v. Superior Court (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 809, 819 ["If the defendant's act is not constitutionally protected how can doing that act be 'in furtherance' of the defendant's constitutional rights?"].) By its very terms, section 425.16 does not apply to activity that is not in furtherance of the constitutional rights of free speech or petition and this necessarily would include illegal activity that falls outside protected speech and petition rights. (See Wilcox, at p. 820 [the anti-SLAPP statute would not apply to a defendant's act of burning down a developer's office as a political protest].)