As an outsider (European), I don't understand the reasoning for the dissenting opinion; I read it as: "you have a right, granted by the US Constitution (1A), but if the state has an interest that is in conflict with that right then you no longer have the right and this is fine". It asks the question "how is that right guaranteed?" if the State believes it is fine to revoke it.
As I see, there is no clause in 1A saying: this right is valid only if the state does not have a different opinion. Free speech is free even if you cry "Fire!" in a theater, but not if the state has other plans?
Btw, in Europe I think there is no country with free speech rights. My country has it in the Constitution, but it is cancelled by the next paragraph saying "it can be limited by law" (any law), so it practically means nothing as the laws should respect the Constitution, not to restrict it.
As I see, there is no clause in 1A saying: this right is valid only if the state does not have a different opinion. Free speech is free even if you cry "Fire!" in a theater, but not if the state has other plans?
Btw, in Europe I think there is no country with free speech rights. My country has it in the Constitution, but it is cancelled by the next paragraph saying "it can be limited by law" (any law), so it practically means nothing as the laws should respect the Constitution, not to restrict it.