[jonas21]

That's not how the Supreme Court has ruled in the past. If a law makes people reluctant to exercise their first amendment rights because of the ways in which it can be used against them in the future - then it has a "chilling effect" and can be unconstitutional even if the law itself has no penalties.

In Lamont v. Postmaster General [1], the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring the recipient of Communist propaganda to state that they consented to receive it before it would be delivered. There was no penalty for doing so, but the court rule unanimously that it "imposes on the addressee an affirmative obligation which amounts to an unconstitutional limitation of his rights under the First Amendment."

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamont_v._Postmaster_General