> That's still not the kind of speech that needs to be protected and heard This is the whole point of the discussion, right here. You're discriminating against

> That's still not the kind of speech that needs to be protected and heard This is the whole point of the discussion, right here. You're discriminating against a certain type of speech because you've judged it to be the wrong kind of speech. Once you've set a precedent that the wrong kind of speech can be infringed, you no longer have free speech - you have a struggle for the power to define allowed speech and disallowed speech. It seems like you are unnecessarily conflating speech and the consequences of speech.