Speech restrictions have always been enforced in the US, and not in a content-neutral way: speech perceived as threatening to those in power, such as calling for checks on police brutality, has been met with force, while speech perceived as acceptable to those in power has proceeded freely.
That’s a bug in the system. You’re pretending it’s a feature that needs to be carried forward rather than fixed.
Put another way, because speech threatening those in power has been banned in the past, it’s OK to ban certain types of speech.
Sorry, doesn’t work like that. Two wrongs doesn’t make a right.
Right-wing protest, by definition, is a call to strengthen existing systems, and give more power to those already in power; left-wing protest is a call to change or upend existing systems. As a result, it will never be seen as peaceful.
Hmmmm. An anti-abortion protest, which is right-wing, is a call to change or upend the existing status quo. A pro-abortion protest, which is left wing, is a call to strengthen existing systems.
So, your assertation is provably bunk. There are no shortage of left wing protest which call to strengthen systems, and no shortage of right wing protests which are a call to change those systems.
In this context, calls to restrict hate speech need to be understood not as calls to reduce freedom of speech across the board, but as calls for uniformity in speech law.
Nobody has a problem with uniformity. But, the solution to any disparity is more free speech, not less, as you propose.