Boittom line: There are commonsense/common Law restrictions on free speech...our entire system of governance would collapse without them.
This is a case which would help define those limits into a sharper focus. Does Free Speech encompass the right to cause harm to the greater good, and/or individual citizens?
Surely you do not attempt to say that words cannot do damage?
A right, *any* right, must be tempered with responsible use.
So, just who do you propose should be responsible for determining what constitutes “acceptable” speech and what limits should be placed on our INALIENABLE rights? You? No thanks.
Here’s another question. Do you think that it is ok that some places in the US require that citizens be required to get permission to bear arms, or that “assault” weapons are not allowed, when the Constitution plainly states that the right to bear arms is a fundamental, inalienable right? Any rational conservative would say that this requirement is unconstitutional and a violation of the second amendment. Yet this is exactly what you are proposing be done in regards to the first amendment.