While I don't agree with what they say......in fact I despise it........I do feel they have the right to say it. If they stop them, who CAN'T they stop?
There is another way to look at this, ala Mark Levin: the USSC has a raft of "tests" it uses to decide cases, 1A being no different, and they've used such to issue rulings on limitations on free speech a) in schools, b) "nasty" tobacco advertising, c) political speech via money, and others. This upsets the purists, of course, but it's happened ... except for
this case. For some
reason, the Court couldn't
find a limit for this egregiousness via one of their friggin "tests".