So anything challenging orthodoxy needs to be substantive to be tolerated as free speech? Who decides what is substantive? Even shit clickbait-y speech deserves

So anything challenging orthodoxy needs to be substantive to be tolerated as free speech? Who decides what is substantive? Even shit clickbait-y speech deserves tolerance just like "substantive" speech, whatever that means. I really don't like Joe Rogan and his brand of wishy-washy pseudointellectualism, but based on the sheer variety of people he's had on over the years, dismissing all of his content as clickbait and contrarian for controversy's sake is a mischaracterization. Who else has interviewed both Bernie Sanders and Alex Jones? Even if you don't like him I think he at the very least deserves respect for having such a wide range of guest on his show, and it's disingenuous to dismiss him entirely as unsubstantive. "In addition to inducing people to harm themselves and others". Again, who decides what is harmful?