The thing about the First Amendment, as it is now interpreted, is that it's a bit like how the law bars rich and poor alike from sleeping on park benches and under bridges. The speech of the privileged is tremendously more powerful than the speech of the marginalized. Allowing the powerful to say any old thing without fear of consequence poses a direct threat of harm to marginalized groups. Therefore, an absolute right to free speech is more threatening to the marginalized than a more measured approach wherein the right of the privileged to spew hate is far less defensible.

I suggest you read Andy Wingo's essay on this subject and let it really sink in: https://www.wingolog.org/archives/2017/09/04/the-hardest-thi...

Yes, the problem with free speech is people might advocate immigration policies other than "open borders for all". That cannot be permitted - France belongs to everyone.

Fortunately we have heroes such as Andy Wingo, that immigrate to France, then work to exclude the natives from employment if they suspect those natives don't want to share their homeland with even more immigrants.

Thus a virtuous cycle is born - the more immigrants that come, the more marginalized the closed-borders fascists become.