When it comes to your vision of rights under the Constitution, and reasonable restrictions based on likely outcome, I can't see that we have any disagreement.
As I noted before, I'm sure we can find disagreements if we look for them on where to draw the line, but that's the nature of being human and a different argument.
My case all along has been that handing our responsibilities over to a judge, because we think that the particular judge will rule our way this one time, is the most dangerous thing to do. Because once you give the judiciary the power, they won't give it back.
What prevents a dictatorship of the majority. Ultimately there is only one thing that ever does. The majority's own restraint and willingness to follow the Constitution, based on the supposition of each individual that playing by the rules is in their own self interest. If it is demonstrated over time that it is not in their long term interest, they will make a new rule book. I'd like to keep that from happening and assert that to do it, we must enter the arena of ideas every day and make the case for the People to keep their authority and to act on it responsibly.
Unfortunately, your allies on this thread are of a character that reveals at least three enabling conditions of the actually existing impetus for prohibition - malicious ignorance of history, a not-so-disguised personal financial interest, and an unreasoning hatred for those perceived as 'non-conforming'.
Personally, I've no patience remaining for these thugs. This is not a recent development - posting histories show everything you need to know.