For example, pass a law making the distribution of PII unlawful if the intent of the distribution is to cause violence or unrest. The law itself would cover everyone evenly.
With a few sentence enhancement clauses, the same statute that protects everyone equally can add additional terms of incarceration or mandatory minimums for judges and law enforcement.
The key flaw of this theory is the dependance on law enforcement practice.
Such law abridges what somebody says, and thus cannot be made.
"Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment include obscenity (as determined by the Miller test), fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...
These exceptions are given. What’s your point?