Businesses (despite common belief) have less free speech power when engaging in commerce. If they said, "Utah law XYZ violates the constitution, call your state legislator", almost certainly protected. Versus: "Here are instructions on how to violate the law" (whether eventually upheld or not), much less sturdy ground.
replyBecause we don’t like people doing it. Duh.
replyIt is, but the first amendment isn't absolute.
replyI guess this could be speech integral to criminal conduct but seems like a stretch.
replyIt is, but our judges and legislators find it expedient to pretend it's not.
replyThe people who wrote it and the people who ratified didn't seem to think it was absolute. The First Amendment was not intended to create a new right of speech. It was intended to prevent the new federal government from abridging the existing right as it was under common law and state law.
replyUnder state and common law at the time many kinds of speech were routinely regulated or even criminalized, such as defamation and blasphemy.
They weren't short on ink. If they wanted to add additional conditions and tweaks, they would have. What they thought, or what they wrote down elsewhere, doesn't matter.
replyOr at least it shouldn't.
The constitution did not apply nationally originally, it only applied to the federal government.
replyIt wasn't until the 14th amendment that the constitution started overriding state constitutions/laws.
Idaho did in fact add additional ink to the freedom of speech [1]. In fact this is why so many states have a bill of rights similar to the federal constitution in their own constitutions.
[1] https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idconst/ArtI/Sec...