Close, but not quite.
You said so yourself that Islam put situational constraints on speech because of certain
VIRTUES. Am not going to challenge that aspect of your religion.
What is a 'virtue'? What we casually use the word 'virtue' is actually something that is desirable. For example, having a family is desirable, so a family is
VIRTUOUS, meaning what we should aspire to have. A truth or fact is not a 'virtue' but being truthful and factual is
VIRTUOUS. Am not being pedantic but the difference is critical to remove misunderstanding.
The difference between what Islam teaches to desire and what the US Constitution say is that the US Constitution have literally no constraint. The First Amendment simply say:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The First says nothing about what are desirable or
VIRTUOUS traits, behaviors, customs, or situations. The First simply forbid Congress to make any law that restrict speech.
Now, if you want to make such a law, then you must descent down one level, the practical or situational level, and justify why you must restrict speech based only on this situation. You cannot yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater when there is no fire, that is the law. But if you are in the middle of the ocean, then yell 'Fire' all you want. The law say nothing about the latter situation, so it is implicit that you are allowed to yell 'Fire' if you are alone in the middle of the ocean.
This 'virtue' or 'virtuous' based misunderstanding of the First Amendment is why so many people make flawed criticisms and comparisons to their current beliefs.