The real dilemma to me sounds like what we define as freedom of speech in the first place? If we say let anyone say anything, we end up with someone encouragin

The real dilemma to me sounds like what we define as freedom of speech in the first place? If we say let anyone say anything, we end up with someone encouraging discrimination or even genocide. From the other side if we introduce restrictions on what's allowed to say and what's not, who decides black and white? Even if we build a trustworthy system for decisions, what about gray areas? E.g. antivaxxers. Their efforts might make people die. Indirectly. But it can happen. If antivaxxers are banned, should we do the same for flatearthers?