I have mixed feelings about your point 1. For example, I fully support employee's right to talk about unions, or discus their salaries with one another. But if I ran a coffee shop, say, and my employee seriously reduced my income by standing on the sidewalk outside the store on his off hours and insulted customers, I'd feel like I shouldn't be forced to fund that activity by employing him. Admittedly, it gets a little more complicated if he were there telling them that coffee is a neurotoxin that will turn their french bulldogs gay. In either case, he's still driving away my customers.

There's a point where freedom of speech intersects with freedom to not be harassed. If someone doxxes me in an argument, that's one thing. If they publish my kids' pictures and the address of their school, that's another entirely. But where the point of "acceptable" lies is difficult to nail down. Intimidation and threats can take many forms, depending on the relative position and power someone has in society, not to mention their histories. What would be a dumb insult to me might be a direct threat to someone else, and vice versa.

I agree that social media and today's news media operate largely on a Lacanian outrage mechanism that is divisive, self-amplifying, and accelerational. I don't have a good solution to that. My general inclination has historically been towards government regulation, but even the law depends on some degree of a shared vision of society. If you have no faith in the community and feel no obligation to it, or worse yet, feel that it is illegitimate on its face, you can always find ways to circumvent the letter of the law. That phenomenon has been increasingly weaponized, and I can't see any good ways to break that cycle.