The OP was about her not understanding the concept of free speech.
You are right when you said, "Pelosi's misguided call for prior restraint was wrong and can't be defended - there was no evidence that this group intended to anything other than have a peaceful rally."
As for the "hate" speech part of your reply, while not on topic, I'll still take a stab at it. 1st - The term "hate speech" is one with absolutely no legal meaning. It's a made up term for some people to feel better about their false belief that if other people's speech is offensive, or if that person feels that it is hateful, then they are on the side of "good" if they try to shut down others' speech. As someone else pointed out in a prior thread, with that faulty logic, can't cry when someone else wants to shut down a church's speech, a political party speech, a civil rights protest, etc. etc. should they find those types of speeches offend them and are, in their eyes, "hate speech".
and 2nd - Common sense tells us that,yes, someone's speech can be hateful, however, SCOTUS has also shown us with its decisions in just the last 50 or so years that regardless of how hateful the speech, barring a few very narrow exceptions, such hateful speech is protected speech. Westboro Baptist Church is a prime example of that.
Your FCC regs info is not only a distraction, but is a bait and switch attempt as those arguments are beyond a false equivalency. Think of them more like the old saying that 'freedom of the press extends to the man who owns it (the press).' He decides what he is willing to allow and not allow to be printed in his newspaper, and he is the final decision maker regardless of a persons right to say something. He isn't stopping them from saying whatever it is they want, they just cannot do it in his newspaper if he says no. Gov't owns the airwaves and issues licenses to (or for?) stations, if you want a license you have to follow their rules. If you want to say something on a licensed public station, you will agree to their terms or you will go to cable or perhaps hold a protest in public.
For public protesters, gov't nor a mob has any right to violently attack you (physically) because they don't agree with you or you insulted them; no more than a group saying hateful things has any right to attack someone voicing their disapproval of what is being said. To prove my point about so called "hate speech", in the example I just mentioned BOTH sides could claim the other is guilty of using "hate speech" simply because they said something someone didn't agree with, and based on how the term is often used, both sides would be using the term correctly. Now you might disagree with me on that, Mike. If so, allow me to ask, who says your interpretation of that term is the only legitimate definition that is allowed to be used for that highly subjective non-legal term?
Now to bring it back to the OP, gov't officials who write the laws that we must live under should have, at the very least, a basic understanding of our Constitutionally protected rights as well as the limits of government that the Constitution places on it.
Some food for thought or just some research material: http://tinyurl.com/ybgq5byp -- In Major Free Speech Victory, SCOTUS Rules for 'The Slants' and Strikes Down Federal Trademark Restriction
http://tinyurl.com/y769j6vh -- Sen. Feinstein: Protecting College Free Speech from Violent Protests Is Too Much of a Burden
http://tinyurl.com/ya3da6qb -- Euro Logic: We Must Kill Free Speech to Promote Free Speech Americans must resist the delusional embrace of E.U.-style "hate speech" rules.
Warning: Contains "the 7 dirty words" (NFWL) - it is used to make a point not to be offensive. Please, Don't press play if that 3 seconds or so would be too offensive for you. <div style="font-size: 0.8em"><a href="https://www.tools4noobs.com/online_tools/youtube_xhtml/">Get your own valid XHTML YouTube embed code</a></div>
