I do believe that there are political forces in play that dampen the exercise of free speech in support of sometimes worthy goals by use of intimidation. Congress has passed legislation before that has dampened speech, but the pendulum has always swung back to a vibrant defense of First Amendment speech. Do not see a constitutional amendment countering free speech exercise making it into the Constitution. Only a continuation of strong arm tactics to dampen enthusiasm to speak freely. It will continue as long as our politics is polarized. That is bad enough.
"Experiments in regulation will end horribly, and someone will propose an all-encompassing solution to poke a hole in the First Amendment by another amendment preventing “hate” or “seditious” speech. It will be passed by Congress and ratified by the states."
I'll take the other side of that bet. Amending the Constitution is nigh impossible in this modern age (look how difficult it is to pass simple legislation of any meaningful magnitude relying on regular order in Congress), and I have a very difficult time imagining how much further the country would have to slip (moral panics or not) before amending the First Amendment.
The simpler and easier path is to stack the Court with Justices who don't interpret hate or seditious speech as eligible for First Amendment protections (they've already carved out some exceptions), and letting an existing law or EO stand that limits such speech. I'd also take the other side of the bet that happens, too.
I do believe that there are political forces in play that dampen the exercise of free speech in support of sometimes worthy goals by use of intimidation. Congress has passed legislation before that has dampened speech, but the pendulum has always swung back to a vibrant defense of First Amendment speech. Do not see a constitutional amendment countering free speech exercise making it into the Constitution. Only a continuation of strong arm tactics to dampen enthusiasm to speak freely. It will continue as long as our politics is polarized. That is bad enough.
"Experiments in regulation will end horribly, and someone will propose an all-encompassing solution to poke a hole in the First Amendment by another amendment preventing “hate” or “seditious” speech. It will be passed by Congress and ratified by the states."
I'll take the other side of that bet. Amending the Constitution is nigh impossible in this modern age (look how difficult it is to pass simple legislation of any meaningful magnitude relying on regular order in Congress), and I have a very difficult time imagining how much further the country would have to slip (moral panics or not) before amending the First Amendment.
The simpler and easier path is to stack the Court with Justices who don't interpret hate or seditious speech as eligible for First Amendment protections (they've already carved out some exceptions), and letting an existing law or EO stand that limits such speech. I'd also take the other side of the bet that happens, too.