One of the natural rights of natural persons acknowledged by the original Constitution, in the 1st Amendment, is the right to insult people by expressing an unfavorable opinion, and in the reverse, the obligation to endure being insulted or offended indirectly by opposing points of view.
On the other hand, one of the administrative restrictions imposed by the state upon corporate individuals is the privilege to deny the expressions of the beliefs of millions because a single dissenter declares an objection that furthers the domination powers of the state.
Until Americans want to know exactly how we got from the first definition to the second definition, and ask the men and women dressed in black (whether robes or SWAT armor) exactly how they are justifying using the second definition instead of the first, nothing will change.
It's like Sean Connery told Kevin Costner in The Untouchables: "Everybody knows where the booze it. The question is, who's going to cross Capone?"
Likewise, confronting the People In Black about how they got from the first definition above, to the second definition above, is Crossing Capone.
This doesn't entail violence or the breaking of any laws. In fact, since yesterday's landmark SCOTUS ruling on the 10th Amendment, it's easier and safer to do than ever before.
But it has to be done, and pressed, until the answer is exposed to the light.
Because those two definitions above define the two separate Americas at odds with each other today - and the second is not the American of the Founders. In fact, it's what the Founder specifically described their America as being created to protect it's people from.
That's the bottom line, minus all the spin.
As Connery says later to Costner in the same movie, "What are you willing to do"?
Here endeth the lesson.
Noted. LOL.