Yet you oppose certain kinds of speech outright by virtue of the fact that the population has decided via democratic legislation that they should be crimes, presumably because of the harm that they cause.

I don't believe that the intention of the framers was that free speech was a good in-and-of itself but that making it difficult (but not impossible) to restrict speech has positive outcomes. At the very least, that is my read of things.

The whole “unalienable rights” of individuals suggests that this isn’t a democratic notion, it’s a moral philosophy and conviction.

Yet false advertisement is illegal and you even support its status as illegal speech.