I don't necessarily disagree with you, but my main concern is that once you have certain laws you can never be sure how they'll be used in the future—see perhaps current situation in 2025.
You have to take into account the fact that laws could be used by the "wrong" people in the "wrong" way.
That's why there's various rights to have a trial with a jury of your peers - ideally it can prevent the worst abuses of unfair laws.
What exactly "reasonable laws" and "excesses of free speech" are is not an easy topic in itself and lots of reasonable trade-offs here, but I would start with threats of violence. This includes not just "I will punch you in the face" which is already illegal in the US, but also general statements encouraging violence which are typically not. For example "Hitler did nothing wrong, we need to clear the lands of Jews", "the NYT building should be bombed with all the journalists still in it", (Ann Coulter on several occasions), or celebrating the deaths of gay people (Rush Limbaugh). "Haha, only serious"? There is a very direct and straight line between all of this and Trump, and I don't think we would have had Trump today if it wasn't from four decades of non-stop high-aggression vitriol stuff from people like Coulter, Limbaugh, etc. etc.
If you want to have a free "marketplace of ideas" then you need to have some sort of baseline. This baseline doesn't need to be very high, but I would say that "I encourage your murder and everyone like you" is below it.
What about the common refrain of "punch a nazi"? Does that get a pass because they're Bad People™? Even something like "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free" could arguably be construed as the violence.
They "can arguably be construed as the violence" from a discriminatory argument. An honest argument wouldn't provide us this false equivalence.