[colanderman]

In general, application of law must be blind to speech. Yes, trespassing with intent to burgle could lawfully have a greater penalty. Trespassing while shouting "Trump has tiny hands" cannot. This is what "free speech and equal protection" means, and the courts have decided that this applies here.

[tomjen3]

Wouldn't the limit be that you said something? Eg. if I come into your home and yell something loudly enough to wake you up and destroy your nights sleep, then that should have a higher penalty than just coming into your home?

[SwellJoe]

What? That's among the weirdest approaches to justifying restrictions on speech I've heard, and it'd be used to ridiculous end if any court took that position.

I mean, I could claim anything upset me enough to cause me to lose sleep, couldn't I? I'm feeling pretty upset right now that someone could say something like what you've said, in fact. I might not be able to sleep knowing there are folks who feel that way.

And, that is effectively what these laws are about; the industrial agriculture industry wants to be completely free from criticism and free from being seen committing crimes. They already have the protection of the law when it comes to breaking and entering, trespassing, etc. They want law that goes beyond that and shields them from any criticism. Which is not a right we in the US have; we can sue for libel, but we cannot demand that people not say true things about us that are unflattering or upsetting to us.

[wtallis]

No. Regulations on speech are not as easy to justify and enforce as regulations on other actions, because of the First Amendment.