I get that judges are resistant to changing something that has existed for a long time, but it still seems like a bad policy. If someone has to be compelled to testify it will almost always be either because the witness doesn't want the perpetrator to be punished or the perpetrator is so dangerous that the witness is afraid to testify against them. Compelling testimony in either circumstance (as opposed to, say, negotiating for it in exchange for witness protection) is very likely to produce false testimony. It's hard to see a government interest in false testimony. Moreover, history is not always right. Censorship is as old a practice as the printed word, that's no excuse not to apply the First Amendment to curtail it.
This is also justifying the lack of a warrant requirement based on something that breaks the analogy to the original case. Witness testimony is no one's "papers and effects", unlike stored data.