The document isn't really the problem in the vast majority of situations and the document is necessary as Chuck pointed out to protect us from the possibility of government abuse of individuals. Which, seems more of a risk from authoritarianism these days than it has for many, many years. The problem is those that either don't understand or ignore the document or, to a larger extent, interpret it in ways that are advantageous to them in the short term but ignore possible future consequences. All to often, SCOTUS has interpreted the Constitution to get the result they want. And, whether you or I might like it or not, really depends on who happens to be in control of the Supreme Court at the time.
And, in the end, whether you think the document is good or not, we have the ability to change that documents with amendments, but we lack the political will to do so.
But, do you really want the FCC, the government, deciding what can and can't be said on the Internet? That might sound great if you like that particular government but it could be horribly bad if the wrong people are in control of the government. I mean, 1984 and Fahrenheit were supposed to be cautionary tales about authoritarian governments.