That is totally untrue.
The First Amendment requires that the courts apply “strict scrutiny” to any infringements. It is not sufficient for a law to be “reasonable”.
Strict scrutiny requires the government to prove that there is a compelling reason to pass the law. There must be no alternative to passing the law which does not impact the First Amendment. The law in question must touch as lightly on First Amendment protections as possible.
The First Amendment is not subject to “reasonable regulation”.
We can hope to hear from the Supreme Court in a couple of weeks whether they will protect the Second Amendment as carefully as the First.
First Amendment law is incredibly more complex than that. Strict Scrutiny applies in some contexts (content based restrictions) but there are several categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment and the court has recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech.
You are wrong. Try going into a neighborhood at 3 a.m. to hold a political rally that wakes up your neighbors. You’ll be arrested for disturbing the peace, even though all you were doing was engaging in speech (protected by the First Amendment).