I believe in due process of law and absolute free speech. Guess I don't exist. Honestly, that's such a relief.
So.. where's the real boundary? Fraud? CSAM? Other media deemed obscene? FOSTA/SESTA related matters? Death threats? Actions adjacent to death threats, like posting a picture of someone's face and address with a target photoshopped on them? Overt advocacy of violence against the state?
(people nearly always come back with some sort of "that's not actually speech" weird categorization defence here)
Free speech has never been conceived as giving you a right to commit fraud, extortion, bribery, criminal conspiracy, blackmail, treason, leaking classified information... the list is long. If you're going to commit a crime, and part of the crime is implemented as communication, "free speech" is not a defense. Never has been. If you think otherwise, your understanding of what "free speech" means in the US is faulty.
> people nearly always come back with some sort of "that's not actually speech" weird categorization defence here
Grand parent neatly predicted your response, you are trying to categorize every kind of illegal speech forms as something else than speech. Either you can say whatever you want or you can't. There's no absolutism with restrictions.
Second: There's no "free speech absolutism". Not only does speech not erase other crimes, there are also certain restrictions on free speech as speech. Imminent incitement to violence is one of them.