> But it's far more offensive and far more vile to suggest that the State has any right to regulate public speech based on its content.

Why? Offensive to whom? There seems to be general agreement that some speech crosses lines that are not okay and should be regulated. This is why all countries that have freedom of speech protections also have a list of exceptions. In the US, certain things like ads, pornography, slander, sedition, and lies are generally not considered protected speech. It depends on the specifics in any given case, but I’m not offended at all by the suggestion that the State should be allowed to regulate these kinds of speech when they cause harm.

The risk is that if the state have no power to forcibly remove someone causing such a disturbance then those present may lose faith in institutions such as the police who they may not unreasonably see as being responsible for "keeping the peace" and worse, take matters into their own hands (in fact it very much looked like this was likely in one such case in Edinburgh). As long it's not considered criminal and the only "punishment" is being physically denied access to the scene in question I wouldn't be overly concerned about it being an overreach of the government. None of which is to say I accept the police did everything right in this particular occasion.