[mcpackieh]

Even as you describe it (I think you've described Poppler's argument well), it's still bogus. We don't need laws forbidding speech against free speech to protect free speech; the solution to the "paradox" is that there is no paradox. Our system of checks and balances to undo unconstitutional laws works well enough that we don't need to curtail political speech to protect political speech. The system is resilient to speech which criticizes it.

Poppler seems to think that fire must be fought with fire, that's his 'paradox'. He forgets or deliberately discounts the existence of fire extinguishers, e.g. checks and balances.