Also, the University I attend has a similar speech code and "free speech area". It works well, as I am not harassed by blue-haired weirdo peaceniks on my way to class. Our Young Republican group had a "Catch an Illegal Immigrant" Day and it went quite well. They've also held rallies opposing gay rights and were not disciplined for violating the code of conduct regarding hate speech.
Perhaps those who feel this way may benefit from looking at the actual law regarding "facial challenges" and "substantial overbreadth" before summarily dismissing such complaints as "gross abuses" of the judicial system.
[Standard disclaimer-- IANAL, etc.]
There is a distinction between law and equity - some states still maintain a dual court system, although Georgia has a unified system, as do the Federal courts. Suing to prevent future injury is a large portion of the equitable case load (ever hear of an injunction?)
Under your theory, a state could pass a law making it illegal to go to church, and prohibiting bail to those accused of doing so. The only way you could challenge the law in your system would be to go to church and then try to defend yourself from a jail cell. Fortunately, the court system will entertain preemptive challenges to unconstitutional acts of the state.