I would take someone, not in the abstract, planning to violently overthrow the government, as being unprotected free speech.
Leaving aside the fact that you take it wrongly, why even mention anyone "attending speeches" if his intent is 'only' to arrest those giving the speeches? "(S)omeone attending speeches" ought never have been brought up if Paul's intent is only to clamp down on those actually doing the speechifying, which is pretty self-evidently not the case from the quotation in question.
He might be saying, we should be taking action against people that actively propose overthrowing the government, and we should look carefully at the associates of those people. And yet, I think it is fine to look at "known contacts" of people (this from a guy who had dinner with a DA last week).
In other words, you agree with me exactly: Rand's stated policy preferences are intended to curtail the freedom of speech and criminalize certain modes of
political speech. You're simply aiming to soften the rhetorical blow against Paul. I can't let you do it.
Guilt by association is
never fine; we've
learned that through our long collective experience on the subject. Profiling is
inherently an abrogation of an individual's liberty of action and of conscience. If I attend a rally by the Ku Klux Klan which calls for the violent overthrow of the ZOG, I remain well within my rights as long as I do not
act out on that rhetoric. You confuse, as most security-Statists do, cause and effect: listening to "hate speech" does not motivate people to do
anything. Those who already hold to an idea gravitate towards speakers who reinforce their ideas.
This is wrong. And you know it.