Holy shit:

If you read the essay, she’s counseling that legal efforts to shut down hate speech and pornography are often encroachments on first amendment rights, and that there must be approaches that are successful but don’t violate first amendment rights.

Her main concern that she states in the essay is the violation of rights. She is attempting to keep any such laws constitutional. She argues that regulation of pornography and hate-speech is often a failure at the same time as it violates rights.

It is, so far, an excellent essay with a nice, slightly insouciant, style. It is essentially pragmatic; it takes it a commonly agreed-upon-problem and attempts to examine the various approaches to regulation of it in terms of their constitutionality.

For any reasonable conservative, this should be a testament to her being an excellent nominee concerned first and foremost with the constitutionality of laws.