America is in the midst of a free speech revolution on campus

The United States Constitution protects Free Speech . . .

We need to protect our Constitution period!

Quite. But the interesting point is that the Bill of Rights did not create any rights.
Surprising statement, until you think it over. The context of the Bill of Rights was fear that the federal government would compromise the rights of Americans.
That is, fear that existing rights would be lost.
The BoR is crafted to enumerate the most prominent rights in need of protection from government, on the one hand, and to simultaneously respect the point made by the original constitutional convention that the government had limited, specific powers and the rights of the people could not be adequately enumerated. Thus

Amendment 1:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
does not establish a ceiling over the rights of the people. Rather, as

Amendment 9:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
makes plain, it is to be understood only as a floor under our rights.
The bolded “the” in the First Amendment is interesting in that regard. “The” freedom of speech/press was existing freedom with understood, existing limits. Speech and press already were generally free, but slander, libel, and pornography were already illegal. If you think about it, a constitutional amendment which destroyed those restrictions would have been controversial, and ratification of it would have been doubtful. Such a provision might have served as a poison pill to kill the amendment. In that sense, “‘the’ freedom" is a subtle, effective expression which we do well to understand.
I have a bee in my bonnet about this point, because IMHO it invalidates the 1964 Warren Court holding in the famous New York Times v. Sullivan decision. The Sullivan decision was an enthusiastic 9-0 decision “enforcing the First Amendment,” with concurrences wishing to go further. I put the scare quotes there because freedom of speech and press intends to “Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred thoughts contend.” And that is not the effect of the Sullivan decision. What was not before SCOTUS in 1964 was the fact that journalism is a monopoly which has an inherent political slant. Plaintiff Sullivan was not a Republican but a southern Democrat, thus not in good standing with the national party in 1964. Thus the fact which is excruciatingly plain now - that Democrats don’t get libeled, but Republicans routinely do - was not before the Court.
Democrats systematically go along and get along with “the media,” and “the media” systematically promotes Democrats and seeks to embarrass Republicans. The Sullivan decision nominally minimizes libel suits by politicians, but de facto it minimizes - practically suppresses totally - libel suits by Republicans. It thereby enforces Political Correctness by entitling Democrats to not only their own opinions but also to their own “facts.”
IMHO the Sullivan decision, unanimous or no, must be challenged and reversed. At least Sullivan wouldn’t be upheld unanimously. We certainly know of at least two justices who would understand the above argument from bitter personal experience.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.