The problem with your first point is that however true it may be, it doesn’t provide a good mental framework for creating values that are universally applicable

The problem with your first point is that however true it may be, it doesn’t provide a good mental framework for creating values that are universally applicable. The lessons of fearing an FBI visit for just sharing text files was correct: being free to speak and not fear oppression due to not what you say but what it implies is what freedom of speech is. It’s quite uncontroversial to say that people who explicitly advocate specific violence are breaking the just laws around that and should be suppressed. The controversy is around what speech adjacent to that is not just permissible, but if it’s just to jump to conclusions about a person’s motives or intentions and act on them in the absence of illegal speech.