Why do self-identifying Conservatives need reminding of late that we are a Republic - NOT a democracy?
Stop. Just stop. We don't need an infantile discussion about which word is appropriate. We are a "Democratic Republic" and the word "Democracy" is often used in this context. Your point is childishly trivial, and you shouldn't have wasted both of our time by going down this path.
It's like nitpicking over spelling. It does nothing whatsoever to address the real issue.
Second... Private property Rights and Free Political Speech are just SLOGANS?
In the context in which you are using the terms, *YES*! They are nothing but slogans that people like to toss out to "Virtue Signal" about how much they love America and it's founding principles blah blah blah ad infinitum.
The *REAL* issue of why these rights exist in this country and the purpose which they are intended to serve is just ignored. Stop arguing with slogans and address the salient point.
"Freedom of Speech" within the context of the Founders meaning is not possible when all access to the means of speaking to the public are in the hands of a cartel which won't allow dissenting speech access. They have set themselves up as the gatekeepers of speech to the public, and if they don't consent, you don't get to talk to the public.
Now you can make the childish argument that so long as you can address small crowds of individuals, this is "free speech", but considering the impact this will have on the voting public is virtually zero, it does not meet the function for which the founders envisioned "free speech" serving.
Sure, so long as all are constrained to address the public with printing presses and stump speeches, this sort of "speech" is at least equal, and since at the time there was no better way to do it, it was acceptable, but now that technology has made this methodology completely worthless compared to mass communications, the purpose of "free speech" can only be served by reestablishing equality between the two sides in a dispute.
The founders NEVER envisioned a system where one side had such a massive advantage in addressing the public. The rights they guaranteed were never meant to create such a situation, but they could not see so far into the future that they could envision such a thing.
If the evolution of our second amendment rights could replace flintlocks with modern rifles, and if the printing presses of the day would evolve into the television system of today, then how can a system in which only one side may possess and use television serve the interest of the first amendment?
Did they have monopoly licenses on printing presses back then?
Just as anyone in that era could own and operate a printing press, should the day come in which anyone can start broadcasting their message on any channel, that will be the day that you can say we all have equal speech in the Television broadcast system.
Till then we have the suppression of speech, not "freedom of speech."