Freedom Of Speech Vs Utilitarianism

Freedom of speech is frequently referenced as one of the most important and defining attributes of the United States’ system of government. People often tout about how they can say whatever they want to because, being in America, they are granted freedom of speech, but that is certainly not an accurate description of what freedom of speech truly entails.
In the U.S., freedom of speech is granted to us by the first amendment of the constitution, but free speech is not only an American concept. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes it clear in article 19 that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.” Freedom of speech is understood to be an essential element needed for a democracy to function properly,
In the case of Utilitarianism, the ultimate goal to be constantly striving towards is ensuring the most happiness for the largest amount of people, while also striving for the least possible amount of pain, hardship, and unhappiness. This is very similar to the true concept of free speech, which, as mentioned earlier, is the right to express one’s opinions as he or she sees fit, so long as the rights of others are not infringed upon/violated. Utilitarianism would assert that taking away a person or group’s rights would equate to taking away a person or group’s happiness and/or well-being, and as such should be avoided. In the case of the WBC, its actions are directly responsible for causing unnecessary harm to others (many others). This may be harm to one’s reputation, harm to their individual rights such as free speech itself, or even physical harm. The church has the right to organize itself and believe whatever it wants to, but those beliefs, or the practice of them, do not require or permit the church to impede on other’s rights as it is well known for doing. If the very small number of WBC members were to operate without harming others, that would, in regards to this issue, directly result in the most happiness for the largest amount of people (the church could practice/believe their religion, while everyone else could
I do agree with argument 2 in that proper precautions should be maintained to avoid the start of an oppressive government. However, so few restrictions are in place on free speech that I don't believe that the government is in danger of becoming as oppressive as the argument suggests. Furthermore, fear of an oppressive government does not justify the existing government in legally allowing people’s rights to be impeded on under the guise of free speech. Such an unrestricted allowance of free speech effectively allows other’s freedom of speech to be hindered or taken away, and thus the whole concept of argument 2 is counterproductive. Overall, if the goal is to optimize freedom and morality, then Argument 1 is, in my opinion, the proper