I "get" that you don't "get" the idea underlying the First Amendment

[JDPriestly]

86. Historically, we permitted slavery and racial discrimination. We aren't stuck in history.

That is the dynamic nature of democracy. We allow ourselves to learn.

After we saw the horrific repression of speech in NAZI Germany and the Soviet block after WWII, we realized that limiting speech in any way is incompatible with freedom, even with maintaining a moral society. That realization, that experience taught us that, to the contrary, our Constitution does mandate absolute freedom of speech or very close to it. It is essential to maintaining a decent society. All other freedoms including the freedom to learn and change depend on freedom of speech and its corollary, freedom of the press.

The experience of WWII and the Cold War made the difference in our attitude toward free speech.

Further, the men who wrote our Constitution, the inspired men of the late 18th century were of the Enlightenment. They admired and read JD Priestly, Voltaire, and the many other iconoclasts who used the freedom of speech they had to break the idols of the religions and autocracies of their time. Without freedom of speech, science is at risk. So is innovation.

Don't mess with freedom of speech. You might find yourself living in a society that is very stupid and very uncomfortable.