This would be all correct if we didn’t have one particular set of laws above the others – the constitution. And it is unclear if rights guaranteed by constitution (freedom of speech in this case) aren’t infringed by this particular law. There is no such thing here as “if they passed a law let it be”. It can be true if they passed the constitution amendment but they obviously didn’t.

Now we can talk about real issue here - how correct the trade off the court is taking between freedom of speech infringement and this law. And as you can see in original post - author there thinks this trade off was taken wrongly by the court. I, personally, think the same.