[perihelions]

- "Not sure if this is an actual legal argument, but I don't see at all how the latter follows from the former - I think it would in fact be really bad if it did."

There's balancing tests like the one in strict scrutiny [0] (IANAL/not actually sure if strict scrutiny applies here: it's just one example of a constitutional test relevant to the First Amendment). This weighs if a law that's potentially unconstitutional serves some important, real purpose that outweighs the tension it imposes on constitutional rights—a "compelling state interest" in the strict scrutiny test.

And there is tension with the First Amendment here. A law that merely "monitors" speech has a tangible chilling effect on the speech that's singled out for surveillance.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny