If you study the history of US case law you will see "content neutral" [0] regulation that "serves a public good" is often used as part of the standard to deci

If you study the history of US case law you will see "content neutral" [0] regulation that "serves a public good" is often used as part of the standard to decide when the US government is allowed to restrict speech. [0] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/937/content-neutral https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/937/content-neutral The "content neutral" part is really important because it is what allows a huge range of government regulations that ideally are equally applied to everyone regardless of how popular a message is. The "public good" part is a portion of showing that a speech limiting regulation is narrowly tailored enough to achieve that public good without unnecessarily hampering speech. Regardless of what you think about the validity of these court decisions, there is reasonable precedent to think that such a law would survive a 1A challenge.