That's an even more contrived interpretation than using the interstate commerce clause to regulate a farmer growing crops on his own property.
Congress was not granted power to pass even a single law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. That is what this law does - and that is unconstitutional.
Throwing in a red herring about slavery doesn't change that.
"Red herring?" You suggest that Congress can ignore the 1st Amendment while busy 'regulating elections' - why can't Congress ignore the 13th Amendment during the same process? (I'm sure your response will be as 'well-reasoned' as the rest of your posts... ;>)
Did you think Congress could pass a law stating that all voters must have a slave to carry them to the polling place?
What is to stop them, if your 'interpretation' of the Constitution is correct? Absolutely nothing.
(Of course, your 'interpretation' is about as lunatic as they come... ;>)
And I know of nothing you have posted which would lead me to believe freedom of speech is NOT absolute. Perhaps you can correct that misimpression?
Certainly. Let's reread the 1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...
Apparently you believe that Congress is the only legislative body in these United States. In fact, any regulation of the freedom of speech is a matter for the State legislatures, not Congress.
;>)