See? It makes sense no matter HOW you frame it, right? Opinions polls are more important than Constitutional Rights.
See, there's a problem here: the courts have already 'clarified' the Constitution so that the explicit and unconstrained prohibitions of the first amendment (e.g. "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press") is of no effect. You see, in the 1919 case Schenck v. United States the Supreme Court declared that Congress could indeed make laws abridging speech [and, incidentally, the press]. The case was started over violations of a sedition act because a protester printed out his objections to WWI and thought to encourage people to non-compliance with the draft (as well as petitioning the congress to stop the war & draft) -- now this is important, the US has almost always made exceptions for those religious who felt moral objection to war (Quakers, etc) precisely because of their moral objections to war -- so there was some precedent of moral obligation being held in high regard. Furthermore, the First Amendment was affirmed to make explicit the freedoms of people to protest politically, IOW exactly what the man was doing.
And the USSC said: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force." -- when it is patently obvious that citation is about an injunction [judicial act] and not a congressional [much less legislative] action.
My point is this: our government routinely violates the Constitution.
What is the consequence to those violators? And what are the consequences of the violations?