[4CJ]

When the time comes, like JimRob's first trip to Washington to protest the Clintons in the White House, I hope 1,000 or more of my closest friends will decide to stand with me.

I'd like to be there. Justice Scalia already will.

If the Bill of Rights had intended an exception to the freedom of speech in order to combat this malign proclivity of the officeholder to agree with those who agree with him, and to speak more with his supporters than his opponents, it would surely have said so. It did not do so, I think, be cause the juice is not worth the squeeze.
Justice Scalia, McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 US __ (Opinion of Scalia, J at 14), 2003

[VRWC_minion]

If the Bill of Rights had intended an exception to the freedom of speech in order to combat this malign proclivity of the officeholder to agree with those who agree with him, and to speak more with his supporters than his opponents, it would surely have said so

As much as I wish to agree with him, he avoids an issue which he might deal with somewhere else.

This ban doesn't stop speech altogether, it places new restrictions on a medium that already has speech restrictions and instead of banning it fully, it imposes time restrictions.

Time restrictions themselves are often applied in various democratic forums. Publci hearings place restrictions on the length, place and mode of speech. Town meetings have rules for people to take turns, limits etc. Voting places have restrictions. The concept of providing order to the democratic process while still allowing a full public airing of views could be considered better free speech than the alternative which is chaos.