I cannot find the quote immediately, but one of the late justice's remarks said that he was "sorry" that the constitution gave permissions and rights to the "scruffy" ones (protestors, I think) that he did not like. I suppose we ought to be glad that he recognized the rights, but it bothers me that such a high-placed jurist would regret that those rights were given.
You've got the story just wrong enough to flip its meaning entirely.
First, citing the text and context of the First Amendment, Scalia firmly and consistently supported freedom of speech. That was true both when "liberals" wanted to limit speech (
e.g., Citizens United) and when "conservatives" wanted to do so (
e.g., Texas v. Johnson and
US v. Eichman (cases striking down laws that criminalized mistreatment of the American flag)). Scalia argued that his position of free speech was driven, not by his personal views on the subject, but by the law. The law impelled his judicial decisions whether or not he liked the outcome.
The Court -- as he put it, nine old, non-diverse people, all of whom had graduated from one of just two law schools -- ought not act as a legislature, imposing its moral judgments on the country. Instead, the Court's job is to interpret the Constitution and other laws enacted by the political branches of the federal and state governments. In so doing, the Court was permitting legislatures -- through the election process, all accountable to the people -- to make the moral judgments the infuse the law.
In making this point, Scalia (probably more than once and almost certainly in jest) said that if he were king, he would imprison the sandal-wearing protestors who burned the flag. But neither he nor any other judge is a king or queen. And he would say that that is a very good thing. In other words, he was not at all sorry that he was unable to imprison protestors. Instead, he was grateful that under our system -- under our Bill of Rights -- nobody has the unchecked power to do such a thing. Thanks be to God, the law does not permit it.