What about them? Sedition laws have been around forever and are constitutional. Courts have always distinguished between speech as expression and speech as conduct. There are a whole range of laws that restrict speech-as-conduct, ranging from publication of the sailing times of troop ships, to defamation, to unfair competition laws.

Speech that is "immoral," but not otherwise illegal (because, e.g., it constitutes copyright infringement, obscenity, defamation, etc.) is what is known in Constitutional jurisprudence as "pure speech." Pure speech can only be regulated when the regulation is content-neutral, the least restrictive possible, and is done to further a compelling state interest (all of these are legal terms of art). Seizure of expressive material on the ground that it is "immoral" doesn't comport with the Constitutional test established for government regulation of speech and, of course, the non-legal-term-of-art "immoral" is impermissibly vague.