Neither of those are cases of the government prosecuting you for opinion or belief.

One is the government prosecuting you for destroying government property. The other is the government prosecuting you for sharing information that you are not allowed to share.

It has always been the case that certain forms of protest are legal, and certain forms are not. Protesting in ways that are illegal doesn't mean that your right to free speech is curtailed. You can still say whatever you want, you just can't say it while burning cars or whatever.

> Neither of those are cases of the government prosecuting you for opinion or belief.

Really?

> One is the government prosecuting you for destroying government property.

A draft card is not government property.

> The other is the government prosecuting you for sharing information that you are not allowed to share.

Which is protected under whistleblower protection laws.

Maybe I’m not convincing you? What about Schenck v. United States? In this case, all the prosecuted did was distribute flyers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

Abrams v. United States?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrams_v._United_States

Dennis v. United States?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_v._United_States

> It has always been the case that certain forms of protest are legal, and certain forms are not. Protesting in ways that are illegal doesn't mean that your right to free speech is curtailed. You can still say whatever you want, you just can't say it while burning cars or whatever.

All four cases involve some form of protest against the government. All four were peaceful; They did not harm others. All four involve the Supreme Court upholding their convictions.

> Your speech is not illegal. The government cannot persecute you for your opinion or beliefs.

Don’t you tell me that the government doesn’t try to censor speech or that they can’t.