Was it here that @G650 posted the article about free speech?
It said something that took me aback for a minute, but I think is accurate. And that was that the First Amendment, a lot like the Second Amendment, was kind of a dead letter until approximately the 20th century, when "liberals" began to use it to protect "minority viewpoints" and civil liberties in constitutional litigation.
I have observed that "conservatives" have turned that constitutional litigation tactic on its ear, so to speak, including with the "activist judges" trope. Now they employ their own activist judges to curtail the freedoms sought by "liberals" in favor of other freedoms, usually those associated with the historical majority, e.g. white "Christian" heterosexual males.
I can't say that "liberals" were wrong to employ that tactic, or that the courts were wrong to "indulge" it.
But God Almighty has it had some unintended consequences.
We have so maximized freedom that various freedoms are now in direct conflict with each other. And, as is the nature of court cases, many of the underlying disputes are extreme or fringey that they make good political fodder for the "too liberal." For example, all the "trans talk" that dominated the 2024 election stemmed from a court case. https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/trans-gender-affirming-care-prison-inmates-landmark-case-trump-eo-halt/
Anyway, this is something decades in the making that gets identified, rightly or wrongly, with the Democratic Party and is something that must be dealt with somehow.
I don't know what is the solution, or if there even is one. Just scattershooting/Sherrod.