WHAT’S SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT “SHALL MAKE NO LAW ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH?”

Apparently, at least one New York state legislator can’t comprehend that simple phrase in the First Amendment.  I come to that conclusion because the legislator has introduced a bill that would require removal of statements made online that are “inaccurate, irrelevant, inadequate or excessive.”   The bill goes on to say that “inaccurate, irrelevant, inadequate or excessive shall mean content, which after a significant lapse of time from its first publication, is no longer material to current public debate or discourse….” 
So if someone were to decide that a statement I made on this blog is “no longer material to current public debate or discourse,” then I would have to remove it?
Read my lips: under the First Amendment, no one gets to censor speech because they think it’s not “material.”  It’s that simple. 
And oh by the way, the fact that it’s written on the internet, instead of being spoken in the public square, is irrelevant.  If the content of a sign is speech protected by the First Amendment, there’s no way that written statements on the internet are not just as fully protected.