The important distinction here is not whether the speech is good or bad; it's whether we are punishing bad speech that happened in the past or actually preventi

The important distinction here is not whether the speech is good or bad; it's whether we are punishing bad speech that happened in the past or actually preventing speech from happening in the future (which may be good or bad). The first amendmemt rightly allows punishing many kinds of bad speech after the fact, but places a much higher bar for restraining speech in the future. Blocking websites or communication apps over harassment is simply unconstitutional unless there is some kind of extreme example (like the domain name itself being invalid speech).