How to interpret the constitution?
There are 3 main ways which the constitution can be interpreted, but many libertarians advocate for a textualist approach to the constitution. Regarding the 1st amendment:
Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the FREEDOM OF SPEECH, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The textualist interpretation would lead us to believe that all speeches are protected, even fraudulent or dangerous speech. No one argues that a textualist approach is the correct way to go regarding the 1st amendment, but for all other amendments different interpretations are all accepted. How can libertarians argue for a textualist approach to the 10th or the 2nd amendment, but advocate against that for the 1st amendment?
Article from r/Libertarian: For a Free Society