The last one was posted here,
deals with government motive in suppressing free speech, not the speakers motivation for speaking.
From her actual article:
Consider the following snapshot of impermissible motives for speech restrictions. First, the government may not restrict expressive activities because it disagrees with or disapproves of the ideas espoused by the speaker; it may not act on the basis of a view of what is a true (or false) belief or a right (or wrong) opinion.45 Or, to say this in a slightly different way, the government cannot count as a harm, which it has a legitimate interest in preventing, that ideas it considers faulty or abhorrent enter the public dialogue and challenge the official understanding of acceptability or correctness. Second, though relatedly, the government may not restrict speech because the ideas espoused threaten officials' own self-interest-more particularly, their tenure in office.46 The government, to use the same construction
as above, cannot count as a harm, which it has a legitimate interest in preventing, that speech may promote the removal of incumbent officeholders through the political process. Third, and as a corollary to these proscriptions, the government may not privilege either ideas it favors or ideas advancing its self-interest- for example, by exempting certain ideas from a general prohibition.47 Justice Scalia summarized these tenets in R.A.V.:"The government may not regulate [speech] based on hostility-
or favoritism-towards the underlying message expressed."'4
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Private-Speech-Public-Purpose.pdfAgain she is talking about governmental motivation for restricting speech, not the speakers motivation for speaking.
