No it can't. It is precisely the democratic process which the First Amendment seeks to avoid. Protected speech must be protected against the will of the majority.
This writer simply does not know what he/she is talking about. For example:
Our country should not legally sanction hate speech, through which those in positions of social power can disparage others without legal repercussions.
Does the author mean that people who are not in "positions of social power" can disparage others with impunity? So the right to free speech turns on identity politics, which social class are you in, what race, what gender, are you sufficiently PC?
Notice that the author does not even attempt to define "hate" speech except that it "disparages" others or is against "modern values." Notice also that the author resorts to redefining the English language. The author describes a subjective reaction by women to "catcalling" as being "objectively" distressing. The fictitious woman with a reaction, if she has one, may be positive or negative but whatever it is, it is her subjective reaction.
Ultimately, all censors seek to objectify their censorship the purpose always to make themselves appear reasonable as though what they are doing comes from some standard other than their own internal gyroscope.
These people are invariably self-righteous and extremely dangerous.
