>All speech besides threats of violence needs to be free, or we can't progress as a society.
The problem with that simple rule is that there is no simple way to distinguish threats. Take a statement like "I don't think black people deserve to live", technically not worded as a threat, but the sentiment is no different. Similar examples varying in strength, obfuscation and contextual meaning can be produced in unlimited quantities. No hard rule can deal with all this, so have to debate what should and should not be allowed.
No. That’s logically flawed. We’ve seen this already, where this argument is being used to arbitrarily curtail all sorts of speech.
By this argument almost any idea you disagree with could be considered a threat, and honestly, it seems like it is human nature to sort of behave as if ideas that are ‘bad’ are a threat to my safety.
It takes effort to fight that impulse.
We need very narrow exceptions to free speech: specific incitements to violence seem to be one.
Your argument is already assuming its conclusion, i.e. that all speech should be free. But then you also recognize that, no, actually, some kinds shouldn't be (i.e direct threats).
The point is: that line you're drawing is arbitrary. You can define it narrowly and precisely, and I think that's what you tried to do here, but at the end of the day you chose where to draw it.
The problem with that simple rule is that there is no simple way to distinguish threats. Take a statement like "I don't think black people deserve to live", technically not worded as a threat, but the sentiment is no different. Similar examples varying in strength, obfuscation and contextual meaning can be produced in unlimited quantities. No hard rule can deal with all this, so have to debate what should and should not be allowed.