They weren't short on ink. If they wanted to add additional conditions and tweaks, they would have. What they thought, or what they wrote down elsewhere, doesn't matter.

Or at least it shouldn't.

The constitution did not apply nationally originally, it only applied to the federal government.

It wasn't until the 14th amendment that the constitution started overriding state constitutions/laws.

Idaho did in fact add additional ink to the freedom of speech [1]. In fact this is why so many states have a bill of rights similar to the federal constitution in their own constitutions.

[1] https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idconst/ArtI/Sec...

Indeed they were not short of ink, so if they wanted to create some sort of free speech right that differed from what people at the time (including themselves) understood "freedom of speech" to mean they would have used a different term and explained the scope of the new right.