The other two comments wonder why anybody might bother passing a blatantly unconstitutional law. And I don't know the answer to that question; presumably diffe

The other two comments wonder why anybody might bother passing a blatantly unconstitutional law. And I don't know the answer to that question; presumably different people have different motivations. But I think that a closely related aspect of this happening is more notable: This is probably the maximal case for free speech protection. Or, to put it another way, if insulting an executive agent of the state isn't protected, then no other protections can possibly amount to a regime which is cognizable as freedom of speech.