You don’t get to point to centuries of free speech tradition as a justification while you advocate directly for undoing some of that tradition. That’s not a credible argument.
You’re appealing to centuries of free speech jurisprudence that constrains the actions of politicians. But the precise nature of that jurisprudence is to keep politicians as far away from the business of regulating speech as is possible.
Your proposal would purposefully involve politicians in the regulation of speech, contrary to that jurisprudence you point to. It is therefore not an internally consistent argument to point at the traditions you’re actively undermining as a reason why your actions will not have unintended consequences.