The case you cite [1] should only strengthen the argument for free speech. The first amendment is likely what saved the lady from a frivolous lawsuit/censorshi

The case you cite [1] should only strengthen the argument for free speech. The first amendment is likely what saved the lady from a frivolous lawsuit/censorship from those who abuse the power to regulate other's speech. What you want is that power to reside with a cabal that aligns with your politics, you want a thought-police you approve of, all while citing a case where someone was literally sued for a thought-crime. I hope you see the irony, and that power often shifts with wild swings. Someday, you might find yourself at the wrong end of a thought-policing policy you shilled for, because those in power aren't aligned. Hence the case for constitutional free speech protections. [1]: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/08/562823691/charges-dropped-against-woman-who-laughed-during-sessions-hearing https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/08/562823691...