Short answer: No.
The idea of free speech is that it is a means toward the main end of securing all of our natural rights by promoting political deliberation, and promoting the search for truth. I argued in the latest podcast that it is perfectly reasonable to shut down Students for Justice in Palestine chapters on college campuses purely on the grounds that they abuse the principle of free speech because their success as a movement would end the right of free speech for Jews (not to mention end the lives of Jews). Any SJP support for Hamas is a secondary question.
A lot of listeners disagreed, and they may well be right that it may not be wise or necessary to shut down SJP speech. But the principle matters, and the logic of this principle is seldom better expressed than by David Lowenthal in his 1998 book No Liberty for License: The Forgotten Logic of the First Amendment:
The most recent threats to ordered liberty come less from communists than from the Nazis, Aryan Nation, “militias,” and the Klan, freed by the Court to mount efforts at dismantling our constitutional system. Today the public as a whole, and blacks and Jews in particular, seem shorn of legal protection prior to the commission of crimes against them. For it has become clear from the events of the late 1960s and early 1970s that the “clear and present danger” rule is in fact no rule at all, no protection against groups that seek to strip others of their rights. Government inaction during that violent decade reveals that under the “clean and present danger” rule it will refrain from taking preventive measures and will deal with acts of law-breaking only after they occur. Citizens may therefore find themselves asking whether our founding fathers, known for their prescience and realism, meant the First Amendment to protect those who would use freedom for the destruction of freedom. Was this keystone of the Bill of Rights really intended to guarantee the freedom of expression and organization to the enemies of freedom? . . .
Some will protest that the First Amendment guarantees freedom even to those who would destroy freedom, that is guarantees freedom to those who would counsel, urge, or even incite to the violation of the law. Such cannot be the case if the First Amendment is intended, above all, as an instrument of republican government, a way of ensuring that the national government is responsive to citizens, so that their rights may be kept secure. Only if it can be shown that a Nazi or Communist or Black Panther Party or a Ku Klux Klan contributes to republican ends can a case be made through the First Amendment for permitting it legal status. Otherwise, such groups are all legally and prudently shorn of this status from the outset, and not only without violating any part of the Constitution, but in keeping with its positive injunctions.
Chaser:
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.