>

The thing that comes to mind immediately as what I consider outside free speech tolerance is facially untrue claims to deny elections, Ala Trump and MAGAs for 2020. Even then though it can be tolerated so long as it isn't widespread enough to actually be getting officials to overturn election results. After that violence is acceptable, but unfortunate.  There are lots of stupid ideas like that, flatearthers types that so long as it remains on the fringe society can weather them without too much trouble.
The system we have right now in USA is fine where everything is free game except immediate directed calls to illicit activities such as violence or disorder.
Agreeable speech does not need any protections, only disagreeable speech needs it and no one should trust a government to determine what non-violent speech is acceptable.
Let the marketplace of ideas and social pressure determine what becomes mainstream or not. Force of law shouldn't be used to shut down mere ideas. >


I understand the frustration that a lot of people have with the requirement that only incitement of imminent lawless action can be prosecuted. This makes it so that someone can say things that are likely to lead to violence as long as it would only occur at an indefinite point in the future.

It's a bad rule... until you contemplate the alternative. >

I'll talk about anything with anybody.
The worst ideas are the ones that most need drubbing in the town square.  You don't want that stuff to fester in the dark, for the same reason you don't want it held unchallenged in the light.  Discourse is the mode of social progress.
Extinguishing people to quiet dissenting opinions is the action of a propagandist.  After that precedent is set, it doesn't matter how righteous the propagandist's message was, it will turn shortly to elitism and hate.