What's the difference? As I understand it, you've just drawn an arbitrary line which reflects your personal views about stuff that's okay to say, and stuff that's not okay to say.
Why is is not okay to say "X should be lynched"? Is is specifically just calls to murder that should be restricted? General physical violence? Or is it more generally calls to perform illegal actions – is it okay to say "X should all be deported" or "X should be burgled" or "we should round up all the X and put them into camps"? Does the manner of the speech matter – if it's targeted at an individual versus a group, or private communication versus public?
The interesting questions are about how we build a tolerable consensus across society that most people can live with. The underlying principles are important to that, but black-and-white answers are rarely, if ever, correct.
I would point out that in constitutional law, in both Canada and the USA, it is decided by its proximity to violence, basically. The specifics vary, but that's the core of it. The more immediately linked the speech is to violent illegal action, the more likely it falls outside constitutional protection.
The American standard is called imminent lawless action [1], and so yes, openly encouraging a murder that might realistically happen can be illegal, and so is encouraging rioters to riot harder. Canada uses the same basic framework, with a somewhat less strict threshold for immediacy which is how laws there about inciting hatred squeak by constitutionally, while they don't in the USA.
Still not quite sure where the line should be, but such criteria seems like how we should decide where it is.
And indeed what about advocating for state sanctioned violence? E.g. if you're saying that buggery (or pedophilic cartoons) should be illegal you are advocating for men with guns to use violence or threat of violence to imprison those who do it.
Why is is not okay to say "X should be lynched"? Is is specifically just calls to murder that should be restricted? General physical violence? Or is it more generally calls to perform illegal actions – is it okay to say "X should all be deported" or "X should be burgled" or "we should round up all the X and put them into camps"? Does the manner of the speech matter – if it's targeted at an individual versus a group, or private communication versus public?
The interesting questions are about how we build a tolerable consensus across society that most people can live with. The underlying principles are important to that, but black-and-white answers are rarely, if ever, correct.