So rob's argument is :

Free Speech is ALL speech. Even the speech you find repugnant. You are either for ALL of it or you are for none of it.

I don't get where people get this notion that somehow free speech equates to ALL. There are numerous restrictions on speech that are held up by SCOTUS decisions. Like, I think everyone can agree that showing child pornography or animal cruelty in public is rightfully illegal. You can't incite a riot with speech You can't erroneously claim and wear military medals for benefit. I don't get where this ultimate free speech mythos came from, it's never been true. There's always been restrictions.